And I want to also add that the same applies to the vaccines. It is annoying as shit to me when I get some pompous asshole preaching on how dumb, anti science, redneck morons people are about not being vaccinated and how there should be mandated. It is also very annoying to hear the assholes on the other side deprecating on those who got the vaccine and calling them guinea pigs, government boot lickers and similar shit.
Neither one of you are shinning examples of Citizenship.
The wife made an interesting point last night:
the Polio VACCINE prevent me from getting polio.
the MMR VACCINE prevent me from getting any of MMR.
all other VACCINES do the same; actual PREVENTION.
the annual flu shot (which this ‘rona jab is one of), only LESSEN the degree of infection. they DO NOT and CAN NOT PREVENT infection.
we should start calling people to task for calling this thing a ‘vaccine’ as it’s not and never was.
You calling me to task?
Bunk.
Vaccines reduce the prevalence and/or severity of disease. For a number of them, the reduction is nearly 100%, but the 100% is NOT, repeat NOT, part of the definition, and for people falsely to claim otherwise does not make it so.
FWIW, on the MMR vaccine, Wikipedia reports “After two doses, 97% of people are protected against measles, 88% against mumps, and at least 97% against rubella.”
Respectfully, Sota is actually correct. Until the CDC changed the definition as of 9/1, a “vaccine” imparted immunity. Immunity means you cannot become infected; the virus cannot survive in your body long enough to propagate.
I don’t know what the term is for a prophylactic drug that reduces the severity of symptoms, but “vaccine” is not it.
And efficacy rates vary — they always do, with any drug. NO vaccine is 100% effective. The threshold for FDA approval is pretty low (IIRC, greater than 50%), and “herd immunity” starts to take hold around 80-85% for most diseases, so the MMR being 88% effective at preventing mumps infection is doing pretty well, and 97% against measles and rubella is awesome. Now, if only they didn’t use aluminum for the adjuvent in that one….
(Note on the efficacy threshold for FDA approval: the “vaccine” for the Wuhan coronavirus is only around 40% effective on the Delta variant. While a potential 40% reduction in hospitalizations is great, it’s significantly below the requirement for approval. There’s some shenanigans going on there.)
I don’t agree with your definition, and I don’t see any evidence for it. Looking in Wikipedia, there is no change of the description recently.
I think the trouble comes from a misunderstanding of the word “immunity” which is a technical term whose meaning does not match the casual English interpretation. It does not mean 100% complete prevention of a disease. For example, Wikipedia defines it as “In biology, immunity is the capability of multicellular organisms to resist harmful microorganisms.” The key word is “resist”.
Wikipedia didn’t change the definition. The CDC did.
Prior definitions (before Sept 1 — bold emphasis mine):
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
New definitions (after Sept 1 — again, bold emphasis mine):
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
Note that “immunity” has not changed, but “vaccine” has. In the old version, a vaccine produces immunity (which again, means that you don’t become infected even if you are exposed), but in the new version, a vaccine merely “stimulates the body’s immune response”.
Also note that in “traditional” vaccines, dead or partial viruses would be introduced, but just to ensure an immune response the preparation would include an adjuvent such as aluminum, which the body recognizes is a foreign substance. (The idea is that the body detects the foreign substance, activates the immune response, finds the virus particles, and creates antibodies for that since it can’t create antibodies against aluminum.)
Under this new CDC definition, since a “vaccine” just “stimulates the body’s immune response”, an adjuvent solution with no pathogen material would count! It would be a “vaccine” against nothing — and everything — but it would meet the definition.
It’s also worth noting that back in 2014, the CDC had yet another definition for “vaccination” (bold emphasis mine):
Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.
Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.
[Note: “Immunity” wasn’t included in their list of terms in 2014.]
Over time, the CDC’s definition of “vaccination” has weakened. It has gone from “prevent disease”, to “produce immunity”, to “produce protection”.
It’s also interesting that in 2014 and earlier, “immunization” was the process of becoming protected against a disease [period], but after 2014 it was the process of becoming protected against a disease through vaccination.
It’s no wonder the Biden Administration and Dr. Faux-chi aren’t talking about natural immunity (i.e. immunity gained from contracting SARS-CoV-2 and recovering). The CDC stopped recognizing it as a valid form of immunity some time ago.
Ok, so Wikipedia was right all along and CDC was using a sloppy definition.
I’m not getting the jab(s). Period. Full stop. In addition to serious religious concerns, there are just too many unknowns and at my age and health, the benefits do not outweigh the risks. I’m in more danger from the “vaccine” than from the virus.
But if your personal calculus says you should get the jab(s), do it. More power to you. I know plenty of people in my demographic that decided to get the jab(s) for a variety of well-thought-out reasons, and I support them in that decision.
What I don’t appreciate are the people who did what they were told to (read: they didn’t do their own research or make their own decision), and now feel entitled to force their opinion/action on me.
(Note: I worded that sentence very specifically to cover both sides.)
Oddly enough, there is a middle-ground between the two extremes of “mandate the vaccine” and “ban the vaccine”. That’s where I’m at, and it’s where I imagine most readers here are at, but the loudest and most obnoxious voices are at the extreme ends.
I’m tired of hearing about it, from either end. Can we not just agree that everyone should make their own informed decision on this and be done with it?