This is a completely normal part of the approval process, simply because (phase 3) studies with a couple thousand participants will miss very rare side effects (if they exist) because, you know, statistics.
Of course you can trust a vaccine much, much, much more if it has been administered to a couple billion people as opposed to a couple thousand people, with no serious side effects being observed (or the side effects that are observed accounted for and reacted to).
You implication that this is somehow newspeak is deeply weird and irrational.
Newspeak isn't newspeak. Got it.
Long term data doesn't exist. There's no evidence the vaccines are safe long term. They also experienced greatly accelerated trial periods with data and time that would have been woefully insufficient for any other medical intervention. The data, results, and methodology for the trials is currently embroiled in scientific and ethical controversy.
To state they are "the most well tested vaccines ever" is blatant gaslighting. Widely distributed is not tested.
This is something that I see authoritarian pro-mandate people do all the time and it genuinely confuses me. Why do you do this? Do you think that testing with a billion people for a year will give you the same data as testing a hundred million people for ten years? Or is it just a genuine mistake?
Non eradicating vaccines during a pandemic of disease with transmissibility as high as COVID are actually a terrible idea for the same reason not finishing your antibiotics is: It applies selective pressure that promotes immune escape and treatment resistance.
>By virtue of its distribution these vaccines have already been tested far more extensively than any other vaccine in history at the time of their release. If you don't trust this vaccine then you should never trust any future vaccine.
This is a new level of newspeak. Releasing without testing is testing. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.