Yep, I would expect the same. Essentially just an annual booster as new mutations and variants evolve, just like the flu or any other virus.
Also, the "untested" thing that Aber said is a bit of a fallacy. I was much more skeptical at first, and still am somewhat as I've discussed before, but calling it "untested" isn't true. At best I'd say "limited testing". The long term trials haven't been completed because there's no replacement for time in those trials. And that's what worries me, many others, and is probably what Aber is alluding to. It's a valid concern without a doubt, but even with the unknowns it still appears to be much lower risk for long term health effects than the virus itself. Point being, even though there are still some unknowns, "untested" is still an inaccurate statement. All the short term testing was and has been very very positive. And just the type of vaccine it is makes it inherently safer than the typical flu shot style that's injecting you with a limited amount of the virus itself. No virus here, it's mimicking the spike protein that the virus uses to join with cells and replicate. It helps your body recognize that protein and be prepared to fight/kill it off before your system ever sees the virus itself. It was in development for a long time for other illnesses and was modified for this coronavirus. It's not untested, it's not changing your DNA, it's not injecting dead virus into your body, etc.
