Thank you for your response, Jason. I am always happy to engage in dialogue with people who seriously want answers. I will suggest again that you consider the sources of your information: you are not going to get accurate health information from either social media or rightwing advocacy journalists. So let me briefly address the points that you made:
"Vaccines are supposed to make you immune to the disease and prevent you from transmitting it. That's what other vaccines do." No vaccine is, or ever has been, 100% effective--my body and my body chemistry differs from yours in many ways, and so our response to medication and to vaccination will also vary. This is and always has been true, so no, that is not "what other vaccines do." Vaccines convey varying degrees of immunity on us, and reduce--but not eliminate--the odds that we will transmit an infectious disease to others.
"That was the CDC's definition of a vaccine until they changed it a few months ago, so Pfizer could keep using the label. There's certainly theraputic value to Pfizer's shot, but it's not a proper vaccine." The CDC did change its definition of vaccination--to more accurately describe how modern vaccines work, not "so Pfizer could keep using the label." The previous definition was “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” which has been changed to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The coronavirus vaccines are new to the public, but have been under development for years. They are known as "messenger" vaccines. Unlike older vaccines they do not work by introducing a weakened or deactivated germ into the body cell; instead, they prompt or 'instruct' the cells to produce a specific protein--and the presence of that protein evokes the immune process. It is a two-step rather than one-step process, but the goal and outcome is the same as any other vaccine. This is simply a sign of progress in our understanding of how we can fight viruses and should be welcomed, not derided as some part of a grand conspiracy.
And yes, the CDC also modified the definition of 'vaccine,' replacing 'immunity' with 'protection.' This was in response to the overly literal interpretation of the term immunity by conspiracy theorists who were claiming that if a vaccine didn't confer 100% immunity it wasn't really a vaccine. As I noted above, no vaccine has ever done that.
"But most importantly it hasn't done what authorities gambled everyone's health, wealth and sanity on--stopping the pandemic." The best, and perhaps only, way of "stopping the pandemic" is to achieve herd immunity. We have failed to reach that goal precisely because too many members of the public--like you--have bought into the false and distorted information that has been generated by conspiracy theorists and rightwing propagandists.
Still, the vaccines have made it possible to resume--to some extent--normal life, and have saved the lives of countless people. Our scientific community is second to none, and to assume that they are all political pawns playing with the "health, wealth and sanity" of the American people is as insulting as it is absurd. Again, please ... do some research on the sources of your information.
