>Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions.
My point is that the "facts on the ground" are extremely noisy and in large part coming from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This proof is overstated, ignoring the fact that there hasn't been enough time to detect mid-long term effects, its own can of worms.
All of this doubly so given the chilling effect of the stigma associated with what has seemingly been decided to be "misinformation". Clinicians, researchers, nurses are less willing to stick their necks out to criticize the research/data, and so the problem is dangerously self-reinforcing.
These are the same circles that gave us the opioid crisis. And suddenly we've all forgotten about regulatory capture? None of these criticisms deserve this rabid bullying. This is supposed to be science, not religious dogma.
Edit: and let's not forget that these pharmaceutical companies are legally not liable for any adverse effects. Informed consent requires freedom of discussion.
Nobody is.
Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions.
But since the vaccines are proven to be safe given hundreds of millions of doses there is a lot more willingness to trust them.