What percentage of people have had adverse effects from Covid vaccine
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting says serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare and that myocarditis is one of the better-documented, very uncommon risks; public-health authorities emphasize vaccines prevent far more severe COVID outcomes than they cause [1] [2]. Recent controversy centers on an FDA official’s internal memo claiming 10 child deaths linked to vaccines—several outlets report the claim was made without presented evidence and experts are skeptical, noting VAERS reports do not establish causation [3] [4] [5].
1. What “adverse effects” means in the reporting
Journalists and scientists treat adverse effects as a spectrum: common, short-lived reactions (soreness, fever) are distinguished from rare but serious events (for example, myocarditis). Multiple sources stress myocarditis as a documented but very uncommon outcome after mRNA shots, and they note the overall safety record of the vaccines [2] [1]. The sources do not provide a single, overall percentage for “any adverse effect” across all vaccines and populations; available sources do not mention a single percentage figure for all adverse effects (not found in current reporting).
2. How common myocarditis really is, and how experts place it in context
Reporting repeatedly calls vaccine-associated myocarditis “rare” or “very rare.” STAT and CNBC cite myocarditis as an established but uncommon risk following mRNA vaccines, particularly seen early in the rollout and disproportionately in adolescent and young adult males; they underline that COVID infection itself carries a higher myocarditis risk, and public-health authorities say benefits outweigh this small vaccine risk [2] [1]. The sources emphasize comparative risk: myocarditis from infection is more frequent and more severe than myocarditis after vaccination [2] [3].
3. The VAERS reports, the FDA memo and the 10 child deaths controversy
Several outlets report that an FDA official (Vinay Prasad) referenced 10 child deaths allegedly linked to COVID vaccines in an internal memo but did not provide underlying evidence. Multiple news organizations and experts say the claim was not accompanied by detailed data and stress that VAERS is a signal-detection system that does not prove causation; experts are skeptical until full case reviews, autopsies and medical records are produced [4] [5] [3]. CIDRAP and NPR similarly recount that critics want independent review and more rigorous evidence before accepting causation claims [6] [7].
4. What the surveillance systems actually do — and their limits
Reporting describes VAERS and similar systems as early-warning tools that collect reports from clinicians and the public; they can flag possible safety issues but are not proof that a vaccine caused an event. Experts quoted in PBS, STAT and NPR insist that establishing causality requires detailed clinical review, autopsy results, and the exclusion of other causes [5] [4] [7]. This is a central limitation in how raw adverse-event counts are interpreted.
5. Population-level effects, vaccine effectiveness and trade-offs
CDC and public-health sources cited here emphasise vaccine effectiveness and population benefit: updated COVID vaccines in 2024–25 provided substantial protection against emergency-department/urgent-care encounters in children (76% in 9 months–4 years; 56% in 5–17 years in one multisite analysis), demonstrating the public-health value that regulators weigh against rare adverse events [8]. The broader reporting frames regulatory debate: some FDA actions or memos focus on potential risks without always quantifying the benefits, prompting disputes among scientists and public-health authorities [6] [1].
6. Competing narratives and possible agendas
News coverage shows two competing frames: public-health authorities and many scientists highlight large-scale benefit and rarity of serious harms, whereas certain regulatory officials and some political actors are questioning product safety and calling for tighter pre-market standards. CIDRAP and NPR report that some critics fear policy changes could restrict access to vaccines; others argue for stricter evidence requirements. The reader should note that sources vary in emphasis—scientific journals and CDC data emphasize benefits and careful surveillance [8] [2], while reporting on FDA internal memos focuses on risk-assertion and procedural change [6] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking a single percentage
Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative percentage of people who have had “adverse effects” from COVID vaccines across all severities and populations; they instead document that minor reactions are common, serious events like myocarditis are very rare, and claims of vaccine-caused deaths (the 10-child assertion) have been reported without publicly presented evidence and are under scrutiny (not found in current reporting; [2]; [4]; p1_s9). For specific rates by age, vaccine type and event, consult peer-reviewed safety studies and the CDC/WHO surveillance updates cited above [8] [9] [10].