Canon said:
whiterock said:
D. C. Bear said:
I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
That cholera vaxx is definintely long term protection now, given that the Covid booster vaxxes give only about 60 days of protection.
Language means things. It's really a Freudian giggle that he called it the "flu shot" rather than a vaccine and the one virus the left insisted Covid was NOT similar to, is the one (largely ineffectual and Ill-used) shot he referenced.
Vaccines provide immunity….long term immunity. Pseudo vaccines or therapeutics do not. It's yet another reason calling those who oppose government mandates "anti-vaxx " is such a bald faced lie.
Language does mean things, and "flu shot" is the common language for the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine is not "largely ineffectual," again, language means things, The fact that it is not anywhere near 100 percent effective at preventing a flu infection and the fact that it is still a vaccine merely demonstrates the failure of your argument that the COVID vaccines are not actually vaccines. It ranges from about 40-60 percent, sometimes higher, sometimes lower depending on the version of the flu in circulation. In addition, it seems to
reduce the severity of illness and prevent hospitalizations, something it also shares in common with COVID vaccines.
Vaccines do not always provide immunity. People can still get a disease even if vaccinated against it.
Vaccines do not always provide long term immunity so the length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
You should not fall into the trap of being wrong about what makes a vaccine a vaccine and whether a vaccine's effectiveness is higher or lower just because some people erroneously call those who oppose government mandates (as I oppose them) "anti-vaxx."
The page below talks about types of vaccines.
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-typesIt was last reviewed in 2019, long before "the definition of vaccines was changed." You will notice the different types of vaccines that range from whole-pathogen vaccines to subunit to nucleic acid vaccines. You like to argue that language means things. The argument that the COVID vaccines are not vaccines is not valid if we accept that language means things.
Your arguments against mandates are based on minimizing the benefits of the vaccine. However, if the COVID vaccine was 100 percent effective at preventing infection and 100 percent effective at preventing the spread of the virus, would you advocate for forcing people to take it? I would not.
