4 ms·

> the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) -- yeah I'm done. What is it with

by dpark 5y ago

> the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable word) -- yeah I'm done. What is it with antivaxxers and their complaints about the definition of vaccination? They complained that the definition was changed to include a new way of conferring immunity. They complained that the definition was posted to be more accurate. Vaccines have never been 100% effective for any disease I’m aware of. It’s entirely reasonable that the CDC would change the definition to be clearer. Edit: “Immunotherapy” is also definitely not a more understandable word. Half of immunotherapy is dedicated to making the immune system do less.

maerF0x0 5y ago
You're not entirely wrong that terms need to be updated from time to time and to match new technological details. I agree with redefining the difference between weakened portions of a virus vs (as i understood it) spike proteins produced within us ... What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. I'm not an antivaxxer per se, people should do what they want, but I'm pretty unimpressed with what we got in the box that said "Vaccine".
- dpark 5y ago
  > What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). Where are these part of the definition? This isn’t something they put in their definition so far as I can see. Anyone who thought that the previous definition meant “100% effective, no symptoms” was woefully misinformed. Indeed, if people thought that before, then it’s really, really good that the CDC updated their definition. > The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. Then, again, the public was woefully (willfully?) misinformed. Vaccines have never given perfect immunity to all recipients. I don’t know anyone in my personal life who has ever indicated that they thought vaccines were 100% protective, though. I also don’t know who should be defining the word vaccine if not medical professionals. It also looks like Webster agrees with the CDC, though for all I know they’ve changed their definition recently. I question the intellectual honesty of the people spreading these complaints, because many of these same people talk about “natural immunity”. Someone who thinks “immunity” means “0% chance of infection” shouldn’t be talking about “natural immunity”, either. (I’m not saying you, here, to be clear.)
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > 100% effective, no symptoms My (and by proxy am guessing at the public's) understanding would be something like ~90% effectiveness at all but the most benign symptoms, and importantly minimal concerns of transmission. For example MMR Vaccines meet this standard [1] > A person with two doses of MMR vaccine has about an 88% reduction in risk for mumps; In replying to you I also read this[2] which is quite interesting, > MMR vaccine prevents most, but not all, cases of mumps and complications caused by the disease. People who have received two doses of the MMR vaccine are about nine times less likely to get mumps than unvaccinated people who have the same exposure to mumps virus. So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html
    - dpark 5y ago
      > My (and by proxy am guessing at the public's) understanding would be something like ~90% effectiveness at all but the most benign symptoms, and importantly minimal concerns of transmission. For example MMR Vaccines meet this standard [1] If you walk out on the street and ask people how effective the Flu vaccine is, I bet very few will tell you it’s around 90%. (It’s closer to 50%generally.) Most people are well aware that not all vaccines are hitting 90% protection bar. And again, to the extent that you’re right and I’m wrong, this is an argument in favor of the CDC making the definition clearer. I would expect that vaccines are most effective on viruses that mutate less. Influenza and coronaviruses both mutate quite a bit. It’s actually kind of impressive that the original COVID vaccine is still providing so much protection for later variants. > So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric. I think part of this is because it is a moving target. Omicron is quite new (less than 2 months old) and it takes a while to gather meaningful data. Both Pfizer and Moderna demonstrated over 90% effectiveness on the original virus, in terms of reducing risk of infection at all. This dipped with subsequent variants like Delta and now Omicron. PBS says protection has dipped to 30-40% against infection and 70% against hospitalization, with a booster pushing it back up to 70-75 against infection, which is nothing to sneeze at considering that were several mutations away from the original at this point. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-covid-19-vaccines-against-omicron https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-co...
ostenning 5y ago
What is it with people categorising others as “anti” this or “pro” that? He had a bad experience with this particular vaccine and for this very justifiable reason is skeptical about them. What this reflects is the tribalist nature people like yourself have subscribed to. And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?
- dpark 5y ago
  He has every reason to be upset about having a very rare complication. At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.) This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. > And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done? A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. 100% wasn't stated by me as a target, the really interesting part is the shift of the target from "you dont get it" to "you wont be hospitalized" ... elsewhere in this I posted about some of my readings about MMR vaccines, they confer something like a 9x decrease in infections (at all, again not just hospitalizations) . 2 doses/boosters is fine, even multiple years apart... Breakouts happen (with MMR) etc. But IMO the term "vaccine" meaning like the MMR vaccine, is not the same when applied to covid -- hence why I said "immumotherapy" seems more apt. > This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. I agree this is a good and valid point, part of the issue is messaging. Why is this redefinition not making news, and widespread announcement? I was getting texts to stay home, there were mailings and mandates about masks... Social media ads saying what the CDC is doing and why would be quite helpful to combat FUD... anyways I digress...

by dpark 5y ago

maerF0x0 5y ago

You're not entirely wrong that terms need to be updated from time to time and to match new technological details. I agree with redefining the difference between weakened portions of a virus vs (as i understood it) spike proteins produced within us ... What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. I'm not an antivaxxer per se, people should do what they want, but I'm pretty unimpressed with what we got in the box that said "Vaccine".

dpark 5y ago
> What I personally dont agree with is redefining the success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no observable symptoms). Where are these part of the definition? This isn’t something they put in their definition so far as I can see. Anyone who thought that the previous definition meant “100% effective, no symptoms” was woefully misinformed. Indeed, if people thought that before, then it’s really, really good that the CDC updated their definition. > The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language. Then, again, the public was woefully (willfully?) misinformed. Vaccines have never given perfect immunity to all recipients. I don’t know anyone in my personal life who has ever indicated that they thought vaccines were 100% protective, though. I also don’t know who should be defining the word vaccine if not medical professionals. It also looks like Webster agrees with the CDC, though for all I know they’ve changed their definition recently. I question the intellectual honesty of the people spreading these complaints, because many of these same people talk about “natural immunity”. Someone who thinks “immunity” means “0% chance of infection” shouldn’t be talking about “natural immunity”, either. (I’m not saying you, here, to be clear.)
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > 100% effective, no symptoms My (and by proxy am guessing at the public's) understanding would be something like ~90% effectiveness at all but the most benign symptoms, and importantly minimal concerns of transmission. For example MMR Vaccines meet this standard [1] > A person with two doses of MMR vaccine has about an 88% reduction in risk for mumps; In replying to you I also read this[2] which is quite interesting, > MMR vaccine prevents most, but not all, cases of mumps and complications caused by the disease. People who have received two doses of the MMR vaccine are about nine times less likely to get mumps than unvaccinated people who have the same exposure to mumps virus. So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html
  - dpark 5y ago
    > My (and by proxy am guessing at the public's) understanding would be something like ~90% effectiveness at all but the most benign symptoms, and importantly minimal concerns of transmission. For example MMR Vaccines meet this standard [1] If you walk out on the street and ask people how effective the Flu vaccine is, I bet very few will tell you it’s around 90%. (It’s closer to 50%generally.) Most people are well aware that not all vaccines are hitting 90% protection bar. And again, to the extent that you’re right and I’m wrong, this is an argument in favor of the CDC making the definition clearer. I would expect that vaccines are most effective on viruses that mutate less. Influenza and coronaviruses both mutate quite a bit. It’s actually kind of impressive that the original COVID vaccine is still providing so much protection for later variants. > So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric. I think part of this is because it is a moving target. Omicron is quite new (less than 2 months old) and it takes a while to gather meaningful data. Both Pfizer and Moderna demonstrated over 90% effectiveness on the original virus, in terms of reducing risk of infection at all. This dipped with subsequent variants like Delta and now Omicron. PBS says protection has dipped to 30-40% against infection and 70% against hospitalization, with a booster pushing it back up to 70-75 against infection, which is nothing to sneeze at considering that were several mutations away from the original at this point. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-covid-19-vaccines-against-omicron https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-co...

ostenning 5y ago

What is it with people categorising others as “anti” this or “pro” that? He had a bad experience with this particular vaccine and for this very justifiable reason is skeptical about them. What this reflects is the tribalist nature people like yourself have subscribed to. And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?

dpark 5y ago
He has every reason to be upset about having a very rare complication. At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.) This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. > And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done? A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. 100% wasn't stated by me as a target, the really interesting part is the shift of the target from "you dont get it" to "you wont be hospitalized" ... elsewhere in this I posted about some of my readings about MMR vaccines, they confer something like a 9x decrease in infections (at all, again not just hospitalizations) . 2 doses/boosters is fine, even multiple years apart... Breakouts happen (with MMR) etc. But IMO the term "vaccine" meaning like the MMR vaccine, is not the same when applied to covid -- hence why I said "immumotherapy" seems more apt. > This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. I agree this is a good and valid point, part of the issue is messaging. Why is this redefinition not making news, and widespread announcement? I was getting texts to stay home, there were mailings and mandates about masks... Social media ads saying what the CDC is doing and why would be quite helpful to combat FUD... anyways I digress...