> I think it's more of the limitation of liability at this point.

Yeah that's definitely a big part of it. But that's for something for people to factor in on their own, if they so choose. It's not really a fact for the government to base mandates on, unless you only look at public health and ignore all other facets of the issue.

> Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given.

It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint. Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it can have significant impact and repercussions if the government starts doing something half the population doesn't like, and then turns around and says, "Ok well, now we all agree the issue is moot, right? so let's force this thing onto everybody. Despite our own experts not having approved it yet."

>It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint.

100%.

We need to continue to be vigilant and to keep public trust. That's currently at stake.

Also agree on everything else you bring up. Especially:

> now we all agree the issue is moot, right?

This is exactly what I was trying to say initially. If the attitude is: what's done is done and therefore we don't do this going forward; then that's a major loss for society. That can't be the outcome.

>Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given.

Not really when these administrations are not followed up in a systematic way. Basically 100 million doses is not a substitute for a clinical trial..

I agree, but it's too late for the process to work to be protective of the population from a drug defect. If FDA finds that there is a critical issue, that's good to know, but what do we do now?