zlacker

> We don't even run efficacy trials for those every year for different strain compositions.

Now I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind pediatric flu shots? Is it dangerous to the child?

>>darker+(OP)
Might be dangerous, might not be. It changes with the antigen and if the vaccine is adjuvented (not a real word, but if it has an adjuvent in it, mostly done in a pandemic situation like 2009). The dose probably matters too, but I don't know much about that. Flu vaccines in the past have caused GBS, etc. permanent narcolepsy (no one uses that one anymore, but there might be something else that has the same issue). The whole thing is a fuzzy statistical risk calculation, so what's the risk of getting vaccinated vs the risk of not getting vaccinated. Nasal mist flu vaccines could be better for children, because it produces a better T-cell response and LAIV4 at least has no adjuvents.

>>Vecr+17
I guess that wasn't clear but I meant to ask if the flu was dangerous for children.

>>darker+mI
That information is readily available from reliable sources:

Children younger than 5 years old–especially those younger than 2– are at higher risk of developing serious flu-related complications. A flu vaccine offers the best defense against flu and its potentially serious consequences and also can reduce the spread of flu to others. Getting vaccinated against flu has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed work and school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm