You did not increase comprehension by not using a single negative.
replyThey are slower, larger, and less tested. Specifically the hope was to develop hybrids that could also provably be more pre-quantum secure then what they are replacing. History dose not favour rushing cryptography.
replyThey are large, but they're not that slow actually. We've been testing them for almost a decade now. I agree that rushing is bad. That's why we need to start moving now, so that we're not rushing even closer to the deadline.
replyYou misread the comment you replied to.
replyWhich, to be fair, is easy to do because they used a triple-negative.
replyRephrased, they meant to say "there is no reason to remove support for quantum-vulnerable algorithms in the near future."
IMO that's much less likely to be accidentally misinterpreted.