Fooled by Randomness, NYT, and COVID

In 2005, the now-well-known Nicholas Tasib published a book, "FOOLED BY RANDOMNESS," asserting that in many situations human beings assume causability or patterns that don't exist.  ("If we put a chicken on this rock at dawn, it will cause it to rain.")

This week, the NYT had two articles that could potentially fall into the Fooled by Randomness paradigm, or at least, have to be considered in that end.   

The first, on strokes with the AstraZeneca COVID vaccination, makes the point explicitly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/opinion/astrazeneca-vaccine-trust.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Among the 20 million people who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe, 25 people developed blood clots following vaccination. 

The rate of blood clots that would normally occur among unvaccinated people is in fact much higher. 

But given the newness of the vaccine, every reported side effect is being carefully considered. This is a good thing. Instead of being scared, we should be reassured that the safety system is working.

That isn’t how last week’s developments were received, though.

Clearly, this example could open a chapter in "Fooled by Randomness."

On the same day, however, there was another article that while certainly, possibly, real, also could raise the base-rate question again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/covid-psychosis.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The article describes very rare individuals developing psychotic episodes after COVID, and if many millions of Americans have had COVID (30M confirmed tests, perhaps 60M, 90M actual cases?), some would have psychotic episodes anyway, including more than a few would have a history of prior psychotic episodes, out of 90M.