I'm not sure if this was talked about before, but the fact that (like basically every vaccine ever) it won't initially be available to pregnant women was certainly talked about ahead of time. This isn't a fiasco; it's normal.
Medical institutions (CDC, BMJ, Public Health England), the Government, and the broader media (newspapers, TV stations, companies like Facebook) are responsible for encouraging safe and efficacious use of medicine for the good of society, but they can't do that when the narrative is co-opted by anti-vaxxers, the right, and other shameless opportunists.
Makes me think this is an acknowledged limitation and a closer metaphor would be removing some use cases and cutting scope.
I'm not sure I follow why this is news and a changed in protocol if it was known since the approval
The risks profile is very different, and for the same reason my trials aren't run on pregnant women. It hardly makes sense (and would be immoral) to include people in a clinical trail who you know are more likely to get adverse affects (up to death) from the drug/vaccine.
Especially for vaccines you know there will be certain subgroups that can't be vaccinated anyway, and because of herd immunity that doesn't matter too much.