I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.
>There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.
But then I'm confused because couldn't we then consider, for example, vitamin D a vaccine? It's more commonly understood as a prophylactic - but then what's the difference between a vaccine and a prophylactic?
Just that vaccines are traditionally meant to be made from dead viral agents?
EDIT: Okay I found the difference:
Here's the definition of vaccine from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170221053411/https://dictionar...
And here's the definition right now: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
So, the definition changed from "[an innoculated bacterium/viral agent] that [prevents disease]", to "[any substance] that [produces antibodies]".
A prophylactic is "[any substance] that [prevents disease]".
Technically that still means a prophylactic is not a vaccine and vice versa because of the requirement that vaccines generate antibodies specifically.
I am asking these other people what we should do. It seems your in the camp that it's fine to keep calling the covid shot a vaccine. This is fine with me. We simply now need a new term for the vaccines which do prevent contagion.
I suppose the actual word used is irrelevant. Can you goto https://www.wordgenerator.net/fake-word-generator.php and push the button 5 times and tell me what the new term is?
I will then say, the covid shot is NOT that $newterm. That I recommend everyone get the $newterm shots, but since the covid shot isn't $newterm... well...
The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
This is a fair point but going forward perhaps we need a new term or at least requirement to differentiate the clear 2 different categories.
>The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
Oh absolutely. You can find countless examples of mainstream media saying that the covid shot would prevent infection and then you never have to worry about it again and we can then reopen.
So what do you think we should do to prevent this borderline fraud?
My takeaway is that the government and media (thesis and antithesis) has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and they both need to be avoided to keep a clear head. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point, and I'm pissed that I've been wrong about this particular "vaccine definition" point for so long.
>"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. >Maybe the takeaway is that the government and media has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and to not trust a single thing anyone on the internet says. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point.
I understand your point. But I think we come up against a new problem with that terminology.
There is covid misinformation which suggests the shot is sterilizing your fertility. After the shot you can no longer have babies is the allegation. Obviously utterly false.
https://www.kxly.com/could-the-covid-vaccine-make-a-person-s...
Maybe: "inoculating vaccine".
To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
>There is some signal that it does affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is any possible symptom of fertility. Doctors should certainly be providing such risks as part of informed consent if true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine_misinformatio...
Wikipedia very clearly defines it as misinformation. I don't know.
>To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
I think the main problem is that things changed over time. That we came upon times where we didn't have any treatment for a disease and those producing the first shot that can help may have pushed things a little over the line.
Here we are at a point where it seems clear to me that we need to separate the terms. If I am wrong and vaccine will now include these, we need a new word for vaccines that do prevent infection.