Spending a bunch more time collecting data to convince people who reflexively put their fingers in their ears when presented with evidence seems a decidedly wrong-headed approach.
I agree it doesn't make sense for the purpose of convincing anti-vaxxers. But I do think sometimes valuable research topics end up getting thrown out "with the bathwater" so to speak when the general public gets too wrapped up in a pseudoscientific interpretation (especially when that interpretation was originally supported by some poorly done or fraudulent published research).
For example, galvanic skin response was used for very bullshit purposes, which led to research on it essentially stopping for over a decade. But recently it has been rebranded as "electrodermal activity", and turns out to have use for studying Epilepsy as well as other promising potential use cases (such as improving sleep staging without EEG).
I am less aware of literature on side effects for current vaccines, so I don't know if this same phenomenon has happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if certain lines of thinking are reflexively stomped down right now.
Maybe this just needs to be the natural life cycle of science though, it might be for the greater good to let anti-vax die down before doing anything which could stoke their flames.
Spending time collecting data is for improving our understanding of an individual's immune system. Sharing that data helps educate those who are unfamiliar with, but have complete ownership of their body.
Data needs a narrative attached, otherwise it's just noise. There is a point where adding more data doesn't change the narrative, so it's pointless to continue gathering data.
Are the immune responses to the vaccine identical across the trial group? No. Is everyone's response to sars-cov-2 identical? No. Is everyone's immune system unique in its signaling and adaptive behavior? Yes. How is it possible to correlate immune responses by measuring 0.000x percent of the available data? We do not have complete understanding of our immune systems, thus we need more data and most of it can be relevant.
Ok, you can sit in a corner for the next 1000 years while all of that data is gathered for you. A glimpse at your username suggests you have intense bias with regards to the human body and its immune system.
For example, galvanic skin response was used for very bullshit purposes, which led to research on it essentially stopping for over a decade. But recently it has been rebranded as "electrodermal activity", and turns out to have use for studying Epilepsy as well as other promising potential use cases (such as improving sleep staging without EEG).
I am less aware of literature on side effects for current vaccines, so I don't know if this same phenomenon has happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if certain lines of thinking are reflexively stomped down right now.
Maybe this just needs to be the natural life cycle of science though, it might be for the greater good to let anti-vax die down before doing anything which could stoke their flames.