You obviously did not follow the link. I accidentally mis-transcribed it. Go see for yourself, and let us know what you think.
Definitions don’t really solve arguments, but they’re often a good place to start. Here are the definitions of ‘vaccine’ from the first three online medical dictionaries that came up when I searched:
Your second link is to a video with sound. It’s polite to warn people of that. Fortunately, my husband just got up, if I’d clicked it 10 minutes earlier he’d be really pissed at me.
Anyway, no shit. People with comorbidities are more vulnerable to covid and to everything else. My mother had comorbidities. That’s why covid killed her, despite her having been vaccinated.
And, the definition of “vaccine” was changed to fit Covid:
And,
I think you’re a right-wing conservative idiot that desperately needs better sources of information because your mind has been poisoned.
Are you questioning the CDC Director Walensky?
No. Why would you think i was questioning her?
We’re in the pit (checks to be sure). That’s an extraordinarily stupid question. It’s the sort of thing stupid people say, thinking they are scoring points while ignoring reality.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-walensky-study-idUSL1N2TS0S2
The actual quote:
A very big difference from your flawed interpretation. But I get it. You cannot think for yourself so you’re parroting what you’ve heard from the right-wing outlets.
Because, based on the science, the odds are extraordinarily against what you claim happened. I just don’t want you to falsely believe your loved ones died from something that they did not die from.
And hey, that describes my mom. She was vaccinated, but due to her comorbidities (she was profoundly immune deficient) the vaccine didn’t work and she died of covid anyway, at the peak of the omicron wave.
You’re an idiot. And rude.
I don’t think science works the way you think it works.
P.s. - I am a scientist.
I do concede that. Thank you for pointing that out.
It’s a small point, though. It only shows that many people who were labelled as having died from Covid also had at least four other causes that they were also dying from - but they definitely died from Covid.
Do you feel that I’m an idiot for not having taken the Covid shot, though, and do you feel that discussions around the whole subject should be stifled as they have?
Edit: Spelling, and grammar, and context, and formatting.
But I didn’t cite the CDC definition, and – for example – the change to Merriam-Webster was far more subtle:
ETA: Personally, I don’t even think your AP article about the CDC definition supports your claim. What it does show is that the definition has undergone subtle change over the last ~8yrs.
That’s science. It doesn’t stand still.
Smelling conspiracy there is a false positive 
Why not?
So, the science isn’t settled, and should be questioned?
I cited the first three sources that came up on my search.
Of course, science can be questioned, but … let me just quote Isaac Asimov:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
.
–Isaac Asimov
So, don’t presume that your question is inherently rational, thoughtful, logical, important, substantiated, or need be answered. What we’ve definitely learned time and again is that Asimov nailed it.
Fun Fact: Isaac Asimov actually died from HIV. He was erroneously given an HIV-infected blood transfusion during surgery. His family kept the cause of his death a secret, only until recently, out of fear of the stigma.
Oh, I don’t assume any of that. That’s not science. But, between questioning something, and not being able to question something, I will always side with the option to question something, and against those who try to stifle that questioning.
Sure.
But … to repeat myself:
It may very well not be.
Sorry. I posted an edit while you were quoting me. Not intentional.
Another way to state my fundamental position would be…
What we’re seeing in unprecedented numbers lately is people who, as an analogy, reject the theory of evolution because the fossil record is imperfect, but who then try desperately to convince you of the validity of Creation, a theory for which there is absolutely zero objective support. It’s just that A Book … A Single Work of Fiction … lays it out.
Even if you question the credibility of the mainstream media, real science, or the Conventional Wisdom (and it’s reasonable to be skeptical), you can’t just make stuff up out of whole cloth.
Remember: just because you DO believe it doesn’t mean it IS true, and just because you DON’T believe it doesn’t mean it’s NOT true.
Put yet another way: ignoring science because it’s inherently imperfect is like being unwilling to aim or practice because your first shot didn’t hit the bullseye.