Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Webster Dictionary Changing "Vaccine" Definition" video.

Not really, dictionaries get revised regularly, digital or not. Revising Mark Twain to rename that character to N-Word Jim or deleting all copies of 1984 are better reasons to get physical copies.
3
The definition hasn't changed, they reworded it to be less confusing. You'll note that in the first definition includes immunity, but not absolute immunity. There aren't degrees of absolute. In this case, vaccination was never perfect and no credible immunologist should have been saying otherwise. An effective vaccine may cut the cases by nearly 100%, but there's always somebody that doesn't respond strongly enough to get full immunity. Honestly, I like Jimmy, but this is a normal case where the dictionary writers are fixing a definition that was misunderstood about a particularly important word.
2
Don't be ridiculous.
1
Except that's not happening here. A bunch of people made the mistake. That Jimmy is making here so they revised the definition to be less confusing. The previous definition used immunity to mean immune system response, but people didn't read it that way. That's why it's been dropped from the replacement deginition. A vaccine resulting in immunity wasn't really ever the point, the point was to prevent the consequences of being infected. The not getting it in the first place is just a bonus. It's why imperfect vaccines can be released and used even when they're marginal at best in preventing infection.
1
This isn't a change to the definition, it's a revision. Words regularly receive revised definitions as use changes or people are confused by the previous definition, that's all that's happening here. The previous definition was interpreted by many to mean that if a vaccine didn't make you immune, that it wasn't a vaccine and that wasn't ever true. All vaccines fall short of that standard and if a disease is common and bad enough, a 50% improvement might be worth getting vaccinated for.
1
@JavierFernandez01 This is why the definition was revised. They used the term immunity as a shorthand for imune system response and the bare minimum revision for the entry would be to swap in immune system response for immunity.
1
@susanmercurio1060 You're not, you're resistant. This is why the definition was revised, you're highly resistant, but as you get older, your immune system may no longer be able to fight it off. That's part of why they're still vaccinating people in the 95% of the world that don't have any cases.
1