> it's also about not getting sick

You’re correct [1]. The vaccine mainly aims to reduce the frequency and intensity of illness.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

You're being overly proscriptive about vaccines. Vaccines have multiple layers of effect because our immune systems have multiple layers of effect. You don't neglect the seatbelts just because the car is more likely to crash in the first place.

In which place am I overfly proscriptive? In the paragraph where I say that the vaccines are ALSO intended to prevent people from getting sick?

At no point did I say that you should not get vaccinated, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that the original intention of vaccines was to prevent infection. It is still the main way that most people conceptualizes vaccines too.

You're describing sterilizing immunity, which is a property that only some vaccines provide.

More generally, vaccines are just a mechanism for acquiring immunity. Immunity doesn't mean "you don't feel sick," it means "your immune systems responds better and faster to the real thing."

I am not describing sterilizing immunity, I am saying that the original, and the most common understanding of what a vaccine is is "something that you take that makes you not get sick". That is exactly how most vaccines have been advertised for years, and how most people think of them.

I do not need to need to be educated about how vaccines work, I know that there is a secondary effect of vaccines that primes your immune system and makes the disease easier to fight. But it's a secondary effect, otherwise we would call more things "vaccines", as we know that for example "exercise helps with immune response".

You're talking about a simplified "pop" understanding of what a vaccine is and does. Even in elementary school I wasn't told that a vaccine prevents disease; I was told that it provokes an immune response that provides resistance to a disease.

The fact that people confuse the two is a legitimate public education problem. But it doesn't change what they actually are, or how medical professionals use the word.

> But it's a secondary effect, otherwise we would call more things "vaccines", as we know that for example "exercise helps with immune response".

It is the effect. I think everybody understands the difference between taking care of yourself and receiving a medical preparation that stimulates your immune system against a specific disease.

> I am not describing sterilizing immunity, I am saying that the original, and the most common understanding of what a vaccine is is "something that you take that makes you not get sick".

Your understanding is out of date; the CDC changed the definition of vaccine on Sept 2, 2021. They removed the reference to immunity.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20210901163633/https://www.cdc.g...

> https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194040/https://www.cdc.g...

    > every news source reachable via Google says the change has nothing to do with COVID or the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine.

Does that sound logical to you? The definition went unchanged for years until the CDC came under direct attack for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine compared to other vaccines. If it's unrelated, wouldn't that make it quite a coincidence?

I think the person you're responding to is being facetious.

Either way, it doesn't matter: the website in question is a public information page, not a medical reference. The CDC updated it because it was incorrect, and the timing of their update makes perfect sense given the public's confusion (and predation around that confusion).