3 ms·

> The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infec

> The definition has now been updated (some would say the previous widespread misconception was corrected) to mean that a vaccine can also "prevent severe infection" while not actually stopping transmission or reducing infection. Not sure the definition has been updated, this article from 2015 discusses a similar vaccine behavior: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-m... “ The reason this is a problem for Marek’s disease is because the vaccine is “leaky.” A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission. [. . .] But the results do raise the questions for some human vaccines that are leaky – such as malaria, and other agricultural vaccines, such as the one being used against avian influenza, or bird flu.“ That said, the covid-19 vaccines we have do prevent some infections even of the mutant omicron variant, just not 95% of infections like it did against the original strain of COVID-19. And luckily omicron, while still dangerous and not really “mild”, is milder than the delta variant and the vaccine seems to be able to save a lot of lives.

josephcsible 5y ago
> Not sure the definition has been updated It has. To see proof Merriam-Webster changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merri... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merri... And to see proof the CDC changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.g... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.g...
- version_five 5y ago
  It's pretty screwed up this doesn't get more attention. I don't know how many times I've seen comments "explaining" how "vaccine" has always meant the second definition. It makes sense that the dictionary had updated its entry - they are supposed to be reflecting current usage, not defining words as an authority. But the government making changes is absolutely Orwellian.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Merriam Webster's old definition contradicted other dictionaries and actual usage. Probably you heard about diphtheria and tetanus vaccines before 2020. Those are prepared from toxins. And Merriam Webster's virus definition said viruses aren't organisms. So their old vaccine definition excluded anything made from a virus. Other popular dictionaries had better definitions and didn't change them. The CDC working definition didn't change. They removed a redundant reference to protection from a page for the public because some people claimed it meant anything under 100% effective isn't a vaccine.
- javagram 5y ago
  I’d suggest you’re talking about “a definition” not “the definition”. Merriam-Webster is just a dictionary, not the final authority on the meaning of words. “The definition” would refer to how people actually use the word, and examples of pre-2020 writing (as I gave) where e.g. the vaccine for Marek’s is called a vaccine would suggest merriam-webster’s definition was too limited. That said, I think the old Merriam-Webster definition still applies to the covid vaccine anyway, so this is a bit of a side conversation. “ produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease” an increase of immunity suggests that this definition also covers leaky vaccines. The definition update seems to be more about, as sibling poster said, the first part of the definition not covering mRNA or toxin based vaccines accurately.

josephcsible 5y ago

> Not sure the definition has been updated It has. To see proof Merriam-Webster changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20191013020123/https://www.merri... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20220203031512/https://www.merri... And to see proof the CDC changed it, compare https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20191111050113/https://www.cdc.g... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20220205010915/https://www.cdc.g...

version_five 5y ago
It's pretty screwed up this doesn't get more attention. I don't know how many times I've seen comments "explaining" how "vaccine" has always meant the second definition. It makes sense that the dictionary had updated its entry - they are supposed to be reflecting current usage, not defining words as an authority. But the government making changes is absolutely Orwellian.
pseudalopex 5y ago
Merriam Webster's old definition contradicted other dictionaries and actual usage. Probably you heard about diphtheria and tetanus vaccines before 2020. Those are prepared from toxins. And Merriam Webster's virus definition said viruses aren't organisms. So their old vaccine definition excluded anything made from a virus. Other popular dictionaries had better definitions and didn't change them. The CDC working definition didn't change. They removed a redundant reference to protection from a page for the public because some people claimed it meant anything under 100% effective isn't a vaccine.
javagram 5y ago
I’d suggest you’re talking about “a definition” not “the definition”. Merriam-Webster is just a dictionary, not the final authority on the meaning of words. “The definition” would refer to how people actually use the word, and examples of pre-2020 writing (as I gave) where e.g. the vaccine for Marek’s is called a vaccine would suggest merriam-webster’s definition was too limited. That said, I think the old Merriam-Webster definition still applies to the covid vaccine anyway, so this is a bit of a side conversation. “ produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease” an increase of immunity suggests that this definition also covers leaky vaccines. The definition update seems to be more about, as sibling poster said, the first part of the definition not covering mRNA or toxin based vaccines accurately.