You can "read between the lines" many different things, none of which are said explicitly. Scientists love to be explicit whenever they can. I don't see this a

You can "read between the lines" many different things, none of which are said explicitly. Scientists love to be explicit whenever they can. I don't see this as being indicative of any particular policy, but I see it as a data point which could inform decisions such as: - whether boosters should be given to children, or whether they should be given them last in line - whether we should allocate limited supplies to children, or to other vulnerable populations (eg.: vaccine inequity around the world) - whether we need the same schedule for children and adults - ... Again, I don't think this paper pushes too hard either way on any of these types of questions, it's a data point in a sea of data.