Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 (opens in new tab)

I got a chuckle out of your comment, because it's kind of funny/clever. But I hope you were not serious. Many people believe it is wrong for one group of people to impose their will on others, on principle. I know that's not the prevailing attitude in our culture, and this causes many ginormous problems for our ginormous governments. We are all created equal. It's better to talk with people who think differently rather than tear gas them.

Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.

>The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history

I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.

I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.

So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?

I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.

The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?

I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.

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.

There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.

It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.