No, that's how almost everyone would have believed them to work. 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.
The above is what has been used to justify why vaccines still have to be mandatory, despite everyone who wants one getting one, while at the same time, masks and other restrictions need to stay, because the vaccine doesn't actually prevent the spread.
When you say it like I have above, people dont like it, but we've celebrated and mandated a "vaccine" that is a lot different in it's protection than what we would normally think of.
I have all three of my shots FYI. I'm really curious to hear a substantively different take than mine.
> 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.
“ 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.
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.
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.
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.
The above is what has been used to justify why vaccines still have to be mandatory, despite everyone who wants one getting one, while at the same time, masks and other restrictions need to stay, because the vaccine doesn't actually prevent the spread.
When you say it like I have above, people dont like it, but we've celebrated and mandated a "vaccine" that is a lot different in it's protection than what we would normally think of.
I have all three of my shots FYI. I'm really curious to hear a substantively different take than mine.