It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds
From the article (emphasis mine):
Novavax is still well-positioned to be the preferred vaccine in developing countries, as its vaccine is less expensive than its competitors and much easier to store than its mRNA rivals.
knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.
It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
From the article (emphasis mine):
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.