Apparently 24-36 is a Q&A panel from the following day.
So in his main speech about COVID, in 24 minutes, he did not so much as mention the problem of abortion-tainting of the jabs.
So he finally addresses the abortion-tainting question being forced to by a question.
He says that it's permissible to take the jab, "legitimate to take" is his expression, and that it reduces to a "prudential" consideration where each individual has to consider the impact to his health. He says that it's an "extremely delicate" question (I've never seen a bigger spineless jellyfish in my life) and he's starting out by cautioning that we immediately have an emotional revulsion due to hearing the word "abortion" ... but (it's where I get cut off) ... my guess is he's leading toward saying that we can't let our reasoning be guided by such an emotional and irrational reaction. I'll see if I was right.