you are using double-speak to avoid agreeing with the clear sense of what I'm saying. Just come out and say, "these vaccines themselves posed an unusually high risk to the people receiving them; we just thought it was worthwhile because of the threat the virus posed"

It's not like I'm trying to get you to admit something else that's true, that "there are actually benefits to study in in having a portion of the population unvaccinated, since we don't actually know the long term effects of either the virus, natural immunity, or the vaccines"

There is no clear sense of what you're saying because you refuse to answer any clarifying questions. If you want to participate in a discussion rather than just lecturing us about how we're being "reprehensible," tell us what you mean when you say untested. Because the clear meaning of that word is untrue on its face and you have so far refused to offer any explanation for what you meant. "Trials that take time" is likewise utterly lacking in clarity, because there were trials, and they took time.

I am honestly trying to understand your point of view. I really do want to know what specific difference between EUA and approval you're referring to. Not as a gotcha, not as some kind of rhetorical trick--I am taking you seriously. But you seem to be deliberately refusing to return the favor.

You claimed that the vaccines were "unleashed untested". This claim was shown to be false: they are very much tested, albeit not as rigorously as in normal times - but these aren't normal times, and such possibility is precisely why the emergency protocols were already in place.