In this question:

Is a child with chickenpox who is vaccinated still contagious?, the now edited question asks

If a child is vaccinated for chickenpox but she gets the disease anyway, will her vaccination affect the likelihood of transmitting the disease to others?

This answer

Yes. Vaccination doesn't protect against being contagious or not

is marked with the message:

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

So, it was answered confirming that infectivity is still present. I then added a link to provide the additional reference requested

if infection still results in disease, so called breakthrough infection

but my comment is rejected with

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

So, in what world does the edit which adds the requested link deviate from the original intent?

  • It might have something to do with radical edits. Edits that completely change the post or change it significantly. This can change the OP's original intention for the post. So while a edit may have improved the post greatly, it may have in a way done to much good. I've seen this on other sites. Edits like that are usually suggested as a different post.
    – Pobrecita
    Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 2:54
  • The OP's intent is clearly answer the question, and her answer is correct. I just added a link to validate her answer. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 4:01
  • Graham, I was adding what I thought might have been the issue. It appears I was wrong, since the true reason was brought forth. I didn't vote against it I don't think, so I don't know the specifics.
    – Pobrecita
    Commented Apr 24, 2016 at 13:46
  • As usual my comment got deleted. Commented May 2, 2016 at 17:10
  • You were trying to be helpful, but the rules of editing got into the way. Commented Feb 18, 2018 at 16:12

1 Answer 1


I was one of the people who voted to reject the edit. My thinking was that, as a general introduction to varicella from a non-scientific source (note the lack of reference to primary data), the link wasn't especially helpful in bringing the post up to par on the specific question of the communicability of breakthrough infection, so there wasn't much point. I don't feel strongly about it one way or another if you want to re-propose it and someone else can approve it.

  • I thought the link provided sufficient reason as to why you're infectious; because the vaccination didn't take. I'll quote below as another comment. This Texas non-profit dedicated to providing vaccination data to the public appears therefore to have failed in its mission failing to meet moderator standards here. Although full of data which can be independently verified, it lacks references. But as discussed on meta elsewhere, many of the major hospital sites lack the same. Yet, they are amongst sites suggested to use as links. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 20:50
  • " "The varicella vaccine is 85% to 90% effective for the prevention of varicella and 100% effective for prevention of moderate or severe disease (defined as many skin lesions)."- not, not 100% effective. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 20:51
  • "Children receiving varicella vaccine in pre-licensure trials in the USA were protected for 11 years. However, “breakthrough infection” (cases of chickenpox after vaccination) can occur in some who have been immunized; more recent studies have demonstrated waning immunity over time. Breakthrough varicella usually results in mild rather than full-blown varicella, although some school outbreaks have resulted in some vaccinated children having more lesions that were communicable. For these reasons, a second dose of a varicella vaccine is now recommended." Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 20:52
  • Yeah, I'm not fond of that sort of site for demonstration of the primary point of an answer (although IMO they're fine to provide background for terminology others might not be familiar with, etc). Since mine was the second reject vote on that I was voting as a community member and voted according to my own opinion that it didn't really improve the post (which needs a major overhaul by the poster in order to be helpful). But like I said, feel free to re-propose and others can approve it if you feel strongly about it and others agree.
    – Susan
    Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:07
  • 2
    So, if the original answer contained the same link I provided, would you have voted to close the answer? I don't feel strongly about the answer, but I am trying to understand the hidden rules governing voting here. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:13
  • Not necessarily. I just didn't think it substantially improved that answer, which additionally needed some explanation to be helpful. "Making the internet a better place" and all that.
    – Susan
    Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:20
  • But to substantially change an answer is a valid reason for rejection, yet the original answer lacked a link which I provided. So, you're suggesting that I should have materially improved the answer which someone else could reasonably have rejected. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:22
  • I'm not sure there is an edit by a user other than the author that I would find helpful on that one (which has essentially no content), since you're right that anything substantial would be better off as its own answer. I'd have been more likely to approve a simple link if it was directly focused on the question at hand and/or from an academic source. Look, it's just my opinion, others can disagree, no hidden rules.
    – Susan
    Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:32
  • Then I think you need to edit your own answer here meta.health.stackexchange.com/questions/283/… "Opportunity: participate in cleaning up this site by editing to include references and improve answers. " by stating that references need to be to academic sites ( I guess that means you won't accept references to the CDC) and not public service sites. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:38
  • Meh, I already stated my opinion in that answer that I don't appreciate "reference(s) to the University of X website that contains someone else’s opinion with no author cited, let alone peer review or references to primary literature." I'm not saying it's always wrong to have those, it's just in the context of an edit of a post that's without much value, that plus the lack of academic standards at the link provided tipped me to vote against it.
    – Susan
    Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:49
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. Commented Apr 23, 2016 at 21:52
  • @GrahamChiu rules governing voting, closing and deleting aren't hidden on this website. They are simply arbitrarily applied. E.g. see meta.health.stackexchange.com/q/332/43 Commented Apr 24, 2016 at 16:37
  • 3
    @FranckDernoncourt it certainly isn't well. I'll probably leave this site now, and spend more time on biology and gardening. Commented Apr 24, 2016 at 22:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .