"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>>>>>> hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible >>>> > for
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>> http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>>>>
>>>>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>>>>
>>>> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
>>>> she?
>>>
>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>>
>> You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
>> vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
>> anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.
>>
>> "Isn't very effective" is a rather loose terminology. It also shows
>> it is a little effective.
>
> Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot
> protects 7 out of 10 people who get it.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html
>
> Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.
>
> But if it didn't protect her from getting it, then it likely couldn't
> have protected her from death either. What probably did protect her was
> her age and the fact that she got precious little sleep during that time
> period. The coughing was so severe that it would wake her.

Getting the vaccine clearly lessens the severity of the disease and serious
complications, e.g. death, if you do contract it. It was not a lack of
sleep that kept her from dying.
--
jinx the minx