When I say she answers questions and you respond with "Yeah, this article really makes me feel better.

" yeah that could be said that's being directed at me. Maybe don't add in the snipe at the end? Because that's how it came off to me. I understand not liking her answers but she does answer questions posed.
Did she say "it's been tested and the results are good." Huh? Oh, and "manufacturers must have plans for long term follow up studies." if the answer is no then you paraphrased. Paraphrasing isn't bad but you didn't like the article (which is whatever, I was commenting about the answering the questions part of the PP's comment) so you paraphrase it in a way that isn't what actually was similar. Frankly from your prior comments I'm not even sure anyone at this point will make you feel better, and I get that because a new vaccine won't have the ability to tell you what happens 10 years down the road.
But she does speak towards the governing body in the UK (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) that go over the study for what "ingredients in the jab itself, quality of the studies, which groups see the greatest – and poorest – benefit, are all considered. And manufacturers must illustrate plans for long-term follow-up studies to get approval." Additionally "If, and when, the vaccine is in use, the UK's medical regulation scheme – the Yellow Card Scheme – ensures a detailed log of every side-effect is recorded." She advises that the COVID vaccine has to adhere to the same as other vaccines.
She does speak towards testing: "Like all vaccines, before it was even put into a human, safety checks had already been done. The first part of any trial like this is conducted in a laboratory and involves injecting the vaccine into human cells in a test tube and then animals.
In the case of the Oxford vaccine, monkeys were given the jab – this is done to make sure there is no possible toxicity or harm. At this point, regulatory bodies examine the evidence and when they deem this sufficient – for instance, those monkeys were fine and also showed some immune response – the human trials start. Safety and effectiveness are then tested again in hundreds of adults. The Oxford data on this phase was published in The Lancet on July 20, and is available to read online. It shows the vaccine provoked a strong immune response, as hoped, in the volunteers. It also showed how many experienced side effects. Around half reported feeling tired a day or two after their jab and around as many had a headache." And she discusses more regarding the 3rd phase and the results of the trials thus far. Really at this point it's like I'm quoting the whole article lol (not really that's an exaggeration on my part but you get what I'm saying)
And again it's layman speak not scientific jargon. And maybe a bit more important to realize this seems aimed at UK residents so it may not be new information to a person but it could be news to people not up and up on everything. Even in the U.S. most of us hardly think about all the background stuff that goes on. More or less I commented because the headline and the content match (a rarity IMO) they may just not match to what a specific individual wants (for which is understandable but not possible to avoid). Anywho agreeing to disagree and move on for me respectfully.