Of course not. There’s no evidence for this at all.
There’s plenty of evidence very few journalists have any useful level of competence at mathematics though (Jess Irvine included).
A classic example presents itself here; a nurse in Queen’sland experienced a DVT (or blood clot) shortly after having her first “jab” of the AZ vaccine.
This was front page news, despite no evidence linking the DVT with the injection.
Sure, there’s no evidence not linking them either, which is presumably the “public interest” reason for the reporting.
The reporting misses some critical questions and answers, of course. It would be setting expectations far too high for us to hope for competent reporting from our media in 2021.
Anyone capable of basic maths, specifically being able to calculate ratios, fractions, or percentages might ask questions such as:
How many DVTs normally occur in a population?
What is the current rate of DVTs in the recently vaccinated cohort?
What is the rate of hospitalisations for dog bites per capita?
The answer to the first question can be found via the USA’s CDC; 0.25%.
The answer to the second question can be calculated from the article; 1.8m jabs delivered in Australia so far and 18 related DVT cases. So 0.001%. If we assume a DVT caused by the jab will occur with a month whereas the CDC figure is annualised, we should multiply that by 30 days, so 0.03%.
The number of dog bite-related hospital referrals can be found here; 0.016%.
We can draw several clear conclusions from this data:
1. Statistically, the AstraZeneca jab protects people from DVTs. Ok, it doesn’t really but if we’re playing Numberwang, we may as well say it does.
2. Statistically, the AstraZeneca jab is twice as dangerous as walking your dog.
3. Journalists are fucking innumerate twats.