What obviously happened is that some web designer put a flawed definition of "vaccine" on the web site and it became a talking point for idiots, sorry, anti-vaxxers.
The CDC recognized the problem, consulted with actual doctors on what they should have put on the web site in the first place, and made the correction.
And that just happened to ALSO be the flawed definition in MW and literally everywhere else! Which was changed at the same time! Totally a coincidence!!!
The CDC probably based their original definition on MW's definition, in all likelihood. This is the most easily explained situation in the world, if you could bring yourself to think about it for 2 seconds.
BTW, this is not a new situation, that a vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing infection.
The flu vaccine, to name JUST ONE example, is generally only 40-60% effective at preventing infection for any given flu season. Have you been posting on internet message boards for decades about how it isn't a "real" vaccine?
And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?
As for posting on the internet about the flu vaccine being a 'real' one -- I would have been if anybody was trying to mandate it!
And that's the real objection -- all the leaders were trying to pretend that this was an 'old' vaccine that WOULD stop transmission. That's what all the stupid mandates were designed to do. And when people like me were pointing out that the data showed this 'vaccine' NEVER stopped transmission, they CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF VACCINE.
Maybe that doesn't raise red flags in your world. You do you.
Edit: The receipts of experts claiming it would stop the spread (old definition)
Which textbooks? ... And also, now we're getting into the definition of "immunity," which is the ability of an organism to RESIST an infection. Which is absolutely what the Covid vaccine grants a person.
Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission, with 94% efficacy. That's huge. Unfortunately, immunity wanes over time, and new variants arrived that evaded immunity to varying degrees. But to the best of everybody's understanding at the time, being vaccinated absolutely did "stop the spread." And, at the time, it did.
It still does, now, albeit to a much smaller degree.
Walenski was literally forced to walk back her claim THE NEXT DAY because we knew she was lying. She said REAL WORLD DATA backed this up. SHE WAS LYING.
тАЬItтАЩs possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19,тАЭ a CDC spokesperson told the New York Times. тАЬThe evidence isnтАЩt clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.тАЭ
-------------------------
Pfizer admitted that they never tested transmission, so the claim that it would prevent transmission is completely unfounded. Phase 3 data only dealt with people who were actually sick enough to get counted as an actual case. Not even the liars are claiming what you claiming what you are claiming. Brix literally said she knew the jab wouldn't stop transmission.
What phase 3 trial are you referring to? The phase 3 trial used for EMA had no data or conclusions on whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission. Pfizer has officially admitted this:
"Our landmark phase 3 clinical trial (protocol published November 2020) was designed and powered to evaluate efficacy of BNT162b2 to prevent disease caused by SARS-CoV2, including severe disease,тАЭ the spokesperson said in an email. тАЬThe pivotal BNT162b2 clinical trial met two critical endpoints including the efficacy end-point which is prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection and the secondary end-point was prevention of severe disease. The BNT162b2 trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccineтАЩs effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.тАЭ
The guy is just doubling down on ignorant. No only is he unaware of the technical definition of a vaccine, he clearly doesn't know what "immunity" means either. He obviously thinks he's an expert, though.
I've never heard of a (formerly) trusted government agency taking any advice from a dictionary, ever.
I recall clearly that some commentators were pointing out that Fauci and the CDC had conveniently changed the definition of the word "vaccine," and I believe it took place after Sen. Rand Paul raked Fauci over the coals about it.
"Have you been posting on internet message boards for decades about how it isn't a "real" vaccine?" This is what I'm always wondering when the hand wringing over definitions starts. It's arguably a worthy critique but it's at least 20 years too late to the party.
You think that person was responsible for this change? LOL
The change? No. Duh.
What obviously happened is that some web designer put a flawed definition of "vaccine" on the web site and it became a talking point for idiots, sorry, anti-vaxxers.
The CDC recognized the problem, consulted with actual doctors on what they should have put on the web site in the first place, and made the correction.
Have you never worked for a company before?
And that just happened to ALSO be the flawed definition in MW and literally everywhere else! Which was changed at the same time! Totally a coincidence!!!
This is still a vaccine, we promise!!!
The CDC probably based their original definition on MW's definition, in all likelihood. This is the most easily explained situation in the world, if you could bring yourself to think about it for 2 seconds.
BTW, this is not a new situation, that a vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing infection.
The flu vaccine, to name JUST ONE example, is generally only 40-60% effective at preventing infection for any given flu season. Have you been posting on internet message boards for decades about how it isn't a "real" vaccine?
And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?
As for posting on the internet about the flu vaccine being a 'real' one -- I would have been if anybody was trying to mandate it!
And that's the real objection -- all the leaders were trying to pretend that this was an 'old' vaccine that WOULD stop transmission. That's what all the stupid mandates were designed to do. And when people like me were pointing out that the data showed this 'vaccine' NEVER stopped transmission, they CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF VACCINE.
Maybe that doesn't raise red flags in your world. You do you.
Edit: The receipts of experts claiming it would stop the spread (old definition)
https://vimeo.com/709694678
Which textbooks? ... And also, now we're getting into the definition of "immunity," which is the ability of an organism to RESIST an infection. Which is absolutely what the Covid vaccine grants a person.
Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission, with 94% efficacy. That's huge. Unfortunately, immunity wanes over time, and new variants arrived that evaded immunity to varying degrees. But to the best of everybody's understanding at the time, being vaccinated absolutely did "stop the spread." And, at the time, it did.
It still does, now, albeit to a much smaller degree.
The original data were based on tests that were done on EIGHT (8) mice.
The long-term tests on humans is being done now, on the world's population.
Walenski was literally forced to walk back her claim THE NEXT DAY because we knew she was lying. She said REAL WORLD DATA backed this up. SHE WAS LYING.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/cdc-walks-back-claim-that-vaccinated-people-cant-carry-covid/
тАЬItтАЩs possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19,тАЭ a CDC spokesperson told the New York Times. тАЬThe evidence isnтАЩt clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.тАЭ
-------------------------
Pfizer admitted that they never tested transmission, so the claim that it would prevent transmission is completely unfounded. Phase 3 data only dealt with people who were actually sick enough to get counted as an actual case. Not even the liars are claiming what you claiming what you are claiming. Brix literally said she knew the jab wouldn't stop transmission.
What phase 3 trial are you referring to? The phase 3 trial used for EMA had no data or conclusions on whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission. Pfizer has officially admitted this:
"Our landmark phase 3 clinical trial (protocol published November 2020) was designed and powered to evaluate efficacy of BNT162b2 to prevent disease caused by SARS-CoV2, including severe disease,тАЭ the spokesperson said in an email. тАЬThe pivotal BNT162b2 clinical trial met two critical endpoints including the efficacy end-point which is prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection and the secondary end-point was prevention of severe disease. The BNT162b2 trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccineтАЩs effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.тАЭ
"...And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?"
"This definitely constitutes "screaming into the void." Atop a milk crate. Wrapped in a sandwich board.
The guy is just doubling down on ignorant. No only is he unaware of the technical definition of a vaccine, he clearly doesn't know what "immunity" means either. He obviously thinks he's an expert, though.
I've never heard of a (formerly) trusted government agency taking any advice from a dictionary, ever.
I recall clearly that some commentators were pointing out that Fauci and the CDC had conveniently changed the definition of the word "vaccine," and I believe it took place after Sen. Rand Paul raked Fauci over the coals about it.
Yeah. And I don't even know what that advice would be.
"Don't get this shot that might save your life because... dictionary"? LOL.
"Have you been posting on internet message boards for decades about how it isn't a "real" vaccine?" This is what I'm always wondering when the hand wringing over definitions starts. It's arguably a worthy critique but it's at least 20 years too late to the party.