What a non-story this is. From the original email making the suggestion to change the definition:
“The phrase “to produce immunity” was interpreted [by anti-vaxxers] to mean “complete” or “perfect” immunity. This was twisted to claim that the existing covid-19 vaccines were not vaccines because they only prevented severe illness. I think it would be more accurate to say that a vaccine function is “to stimulate an immune response” to be clear that perfect immunity is not what defines a vaccine.”
They must have read my post from a month or so ago.
The one 51 and 305 said I was wrong about lol.
I said the CDC definition didn’t change? Source?
First you cite where I said you did?
I’m just referring to a post a while back where I said the vaccine definition has real legal problems as written. The definition is as written is a problem and they clearly articulated that.
It didn’t have legal problems. People had comprehension problems. The definition was clarified… for clarity… and that’s what they articulated. Unless there’s a snippet mentioning legal issues that I missed?
Lmao!
Ok
If a definition needs to be clarified it was the wrong definition.
Which is why they clarified it. Great conclusion!
You realize Merriam-Webster alters/clarifies definitions on a daily basis, right?
And this isn’t even guesswork. We have the freaking private email with the suggestion to change the wording and the reason why. There is no conspiracy here.
Because they were wrong. Not because people misinterpreted them.
So what, even if the old definition was wrong, you should be happy it’s now fixed, right? What’s your point?
Derrida would like a word with you