> It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powls said those particular words. That could be. Hopefully it's understandable that I didn't come to that c

> It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powls said those particular words. That could be. Hopefully it's understandable that I didn't come to that conclusion because the article does not attribute those words to anyone. > The vaccines would be a current and global talking point. It's natural that the first post-testing vaccines would be a significant moment, that someone involved would feel it was of historic note, and that a publication would use that phrasing to accentuate the story's weight. Yeah, I suppose, but it's still weird to me. I don't care about the details of the first publicly administered dose. What really matters to me is that doses are now publicly available (kind of, depending on need for now). Nothing about the "first" dose strikes me as being of historical note other than the timestamp and the milestone it represents. But I guess that's a matter of opinion and a lot of people seem to disagree with me.