Merriam-Webster changed their definition of "vaccine" in 2021. They did this so the COVID shots could still be called "vaccines" despite not preventing infection, not preventing transmission, and providing only a moderate therapeutic benefit. In doing so they cannibalized and damaged public trust in "vaccines" which the medical community had built for so many years, and at such great expense.

As is often the case, the problem was not a dumb public "losing trust in [thing]" but managers playing sleight-of-hand with the meanings of words. See also: racism.

I haven't verified if it's true yet, but thanks for this. I think it deserves to be a whole HN post. It's a shame this place is such an echo chamber.

I'm unaware of any definition of 'vaccine' which fits seasonal flu shots, but not COVID vaccines. Specifically, flu vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, it has moderate therapeutic benefit and reduces instances of infection somewhat. That meets your presented criteria in full.

You're correct that many aspects of how the vaccine was handled in terms of authoritarian social policy, overpromising on results, sweeping bad reactions under the rug, and much more, has undermined public trust in vaccination.

But this has no bearing on whether the half-dozen or so vaccines developed against the virus are vaccines. They are.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. And nobody treats them as an authority on labeling. This makes absolutely no sense.