On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:58:27 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>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.

A bit like being a little pregnant?