Dax, with the value of hindsight, what SHOULD have been done? You seem like you know EXACTLY what should have been done but you’re just kind of tiptoeing around it with a wink and a nudge.
As you know I’m very slow so perhaps you could just say the quiet part out loud for me? Mayhaps you explain it in a way even I can understand?
Why do you always head straight to the meltdown? I have never questioned the development of the vaccine or getting the vaccine. But what's astounding to me is how militant CoronaBro's are to even discussing possible negative outcomes from the vaccination (which operates under the wholesale paradigm shift that defined what a vaccine is (or was) . . . done in the middle of the night by the CDC) and how those things need to be looked into. It's anti-science, but just like with the climate, I've seen again and again that when #blueanon chisels it's dogma into stone, they will not accept or allow any deviations. 
This is probably a fools errand to assume you’ve said any of that in good faith, but just in case you have I will attempt to respond to the parts I was able to translate from daxspeak to modern English:
1. Yes, you absolutely have questioned both the development of the vaccine and the need to get it. Probably louder than just about anyone on this board. Just because you agreed to get the vax does by no means at all qualify as not questioning it.
2. I don’t know why them calling it a vaccine is such a sticking point. Even if you think a vaccine means you’re automatically impervious to whatever you got vaccinated against, literally every single medical professional was practically shooting at the top of their lungs “this doesn’t make you invincible! You still need to avoid risky behaviors like large gatherings and being in close proximity to people when you can avoid it. If there were people who heard that and said “whatever let’s go jump in the mosh pit and all make out with each other because nothing can hurt me now!" Well, Im sorry you decided to listen to the professionals on Opposite Day
3. We can discuss negative outcomes all you want, the problem is you and tweedle dipshit over here continue to frame it from the perspective of comparing it to the control group of "do nothing at all" and dax we had an entire year of doing nothing and it well, I think most would agree it went not so great.
3a. Which brings me back to my original question, what should we have done differently? Even with everything we know now, what was the optimal play? Wait a few months longer to flesh out all the possible side effects, let a few more million people die as so that we could make sure a handful of elite athletes are not potentially at risk for cardiovascular issues? Don't get me wrong, all of it is tragic (regardless of whether or not the athletes having problems have any correlation to getting vaccinated) but is it better to let several more millions die? And that’s not me making a judgment that’s me asking you what you think. By the way you frame your argument you’re heavily implying that taking as much time as needed to get it right the first time was an option with little or no opportunity cost.
