I can make my question even simpler: If it’s as simple as changing a label to meet FDA approval, why haven’t they?
As far as I can tell, two possibilities exist: it’s not that simple, or it’s to Pfizer/USG’s advantage somehow to not update the labeling. Either way, I’m curious why more people haven’t been talking about this, and I’m willing to be educated if pointed in the right direction.
One postulation I’ve discussed with friends is that the label change is being slow-rolled so demand is spread evenly among the 3 vaccines. If Comirnaty is available under approved label, what reason would most people have to use the other two under EUA? However, that brings us to the subject of mandates, and enforceability. It would seem the government is trying to have their cake and eat it too. I’m fairly sure there is a legal difference in enforcing a mandate on a pharma product authorized under EUA, versus one that is used under an approved label. But it’s being discussed as if it’s the latter when- legally, it seems to be the former. That smacks of an abuse of power, and if it isn’t, that needs to be made objectively clear.
You never know, the clarification might even convince a few people to get vaccinated. What I find objectionable is the arrogance of the mandate, and the seemingly intentional divisiveness with which it’s been instituted. “Take this, and don’t you dare ask questions.” I say this as someone who got willingly vaccinated against COVID-19 last spring, so if that completely undermines my credibility on this subject, so be it.