It's a big shame we don't seem to use a common word for "non-breakthrough" infe

[DUmpDiver]

gulliver (11,730 posts)


It's a big shame we don't seem to use a common word for "non-breakthrough" infections.
We hear about "breakthrough infections" all the time, but there seems to be no category-identifying word in common use for the non-breakthrough kind. That's a terrible situation, imo. It fails to provide people with the two contrasting categories they need for side-by-side comparison.

I'd suggest settling on something like "unvaccinated infection" as a fair term for infections that aren't breaking through a vaccination. Then people can be asked which they'd rather have, an unvaccinated infection or a breakthrough vaccinated infection. To me that's a no-brainer.

Or what's the scientific term? I'd argue that "singling out" breakthrough infections from general infections is actually bad for public health. It fuels misinformation arguments.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215998094


Here's an idea: We start calling "breakthrough" infections what they really are - VACCINE FAILURES.

[Texacon]

Read somewhere the other day that 60% of those hospitalized at a particular hospital, were off the vaccinated variety.

Was it true?  I don’t know, I didn’t care enough to research it.

KC

[Carl]

Glad to see that DU jrs "Swifty" is still one stupid shit.

[Muddling 2]

Glad to see that DU jrs "Swifty" is still one stupid shit.

Some things will never change.

[Ferrance]

Star Member Jerry2144 (450 posts)
1. Preventable infection

How can the infection be preventable if the "vaccines" don't do that?

Star Member LymphocyteLover (2,563 posts)
5. maybe "prevented infection" is better?

"preventable" sounds like something bad

You do realize a prevented infection is a complete oxymoron. There's no way to even quantify that. You would think with your DUmmie handle being what it is you would at least have some understanding of how the immune system works. God, the stupid it burns.