"Adverse reaction" is weasel words, unfortunately.
It can be as high or as low as you want by massaging data. I got a tetanus vaccine once. Hurt like someone slugged me in the shoulder two days later, because part of tetanus' reaction is muscle contractions, which it was doing at the injection site. That is an adverse reaction (the ideal case is no symptoms, after all). But it's not like I reported to the doctor saying my arm hurt, so it was never recorded down. On the reverse side, if they really cared about adverse reactions and followed up on every patient, and I said my arm muscles were twitching weird and causing pain, and they wanted to lower the number of adverse reactions so their study would get corporate funding, they could say "that's unrelated to the shot, you probably just slept funny" and write it off.
If they define "adverse reaction" as "this study is making us millions of dollars, only the most extreme, obvious, and incontrovertible provably related side-effects will be counted", then "adverse reaction" likely means "immediate allergic reaction within a half hour of the shot", and MAYBE "cytokene storm within a day". Which means it likely is much more dangerous than that in reality because they're undercounting it.
If they define it as "anything weird happening for a week after getting the shot, screw corporate funding, we're going to be honest pariahs", so it includes every miscarriage, every random puking, every muscle spasm, then obviously the shot would be SAFER than the numbers suggest since they'd get a lot of false positives.
But good luck getting them to define it if it is the first one, since that would give away their game, and thus their massive funding.
Which puts it about on equal with the virus itself. Also Britain is being told that we actually need 3 doses, and then at least one every year.
If you're not 65+ or otherwise suffering from a major health condition the fatality rate is like 0.0003%
"Adverse reaction" is weasel words, unfortunately.
It can be as high or as low as you want by massaging data. I got a tetanus vaccine once. Hurt like someone slugged me in the shoulder two days later, because part of tetanus' reaction is muscle contractions, which it was doing at the injection site. That is an adverse reaction (the ideal case is no symptoms, after all). But it's not like I reported to the doctor saying my arm hurt, so it was never recorded down. On the reverse side, if they really cared about adverse reactions and followed up on every patient, and I said my arm muscles were twitching weird and causing pain, and they wanted to lower the number of adverse reactions so their study would get corporate funding, they could say "that's unrelated to the shot, you probably just slept funny" and write it off.
If they define "adverse reaction" as "this study is making us millions of dollars, only the most extreme, obvious, and incontrovertible provably related side-effects will be counted", then "adverse reaction" likely means "immediate allergic reaction within a half hour of the shot", and MAYBE "cytokene storm within a day". Which means it likely is much more dangerous than that in reality because they're undercounting it.
If they define it as "anything weird happening for a week after getting the shot, screw corporate funding, we're going to be honest pariahs", so it includes every miscarriage, every random puking, every muscle spasm, then obviously the shot would be SAFER than the numbers suggest since they'd get a lot of false positives.
But good luck getting them to define it if it is the first one, since that would give away their game, and thus their massive funding.