[sovnade]

And now it's more accurate - there's plenty of vaccines out there previously that weren't 100% effective, so there's no reason to have the absolute language out there. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective after 2 doses - so that wouldn't have met the old definition either.

edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

[yucky]

>sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

Really?

So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website.

And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust?

OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.

[nathanaldensr]

Remember, the gaslighters want you to feel crazy for noticing these things, when in fact it's a very rational reaction to have. Remember, they imply that you are the crazy one for mistrusting government, and all past incidents that show government (and the pharmaceutical industry) are not to be trusted are to be merely handwaved away.

It was, quite frankly, a psyop of the highest order. And they're still pushing it, even in this thread.

[internet_user]

The thread dropped off the front page so quickly, despite huge amount of comments.

must be another deboosted keyword in here somewhere!

[sovnade]

Yes - in science, definitions change all the time. We redefined what a planet was and booted Pluto out of the group.

Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.

[josephcsible]

> Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine?

Isn't the fundamental point of a vaccine to protect you from a disease? Because that's exactly the part of the definition they removed.

[wizofaus]

Where are you seeing that? And clearly the fundamental point of current COVID vaccines is to protect you from disease (they may not help much preventing you from catching it, but they certainly protect you once you have caught it).

[josephcsible]

Here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.g...

https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.g...

[wizofaus]

Wow, that is...weird. I can't imagine why anyone felt there was a need to make that change.

[jameshart]

If our approach to public health and epidemiology isn't changed by our first encounter with a truly global pandemic in a century, we're doing it wrong.

[internet_user]

We've had two pandemics since the typhus/flu pandemics of 1920s.

1. 1968 flu pandemic. 2. 1957 flu pandemic

[SideburnsOfDoom]

That's nice, but doesn't at all refute the parent's point that the current global pandemic (which worse than those, if a quick google is anything to go by) can and should cause changes to public health and epidemiology.

[internet_user]

Irrelevant.

a plainly false statement was made: "it's the only truly global pandemic in a century", your goalposts movements notwithstanding.

Lack of knowledge around basic facts of the field (public health) is a clear and immediate disqualification from any further consideration.

Do you really make suggestions on changes to public heath and epidemiology based on "a quick google"?

Best of luck to you.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Do you really make suggestions on changes to public heath and epidemiology based on "a quick google"?

This is nonsensical ranting. The idea that "There can and should be changes to public health and epidemiology" is not the same as "making suggestions personally", do not conflate them. For the former, all that you need to know is if others have found areas for improvement, and clearly they have (1), so your statement has no merit whatsoever.

The "a quick google" part only applies to the severity of previous pandemics, do not apply it to the other parts. Or rather, lets hear your expert wisdom on that subject - was the severity the same as COVID-19 then?

If you want fixed goalposts, then the one thing to answer is: do you deny that the current pandemic "can and should cause changes to public health and epidemiology" ?

1) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7

https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...