>But for the deadly virus you interpret the lack sufficient evidence on children as no risk, for the vaccine as as a sign of risk. How do you justify that incon

>But for the deadly virus you interpret the lack sufficient evidence on children as no risk, for the vaccine as as a sign of risk. How do you justify that inconsistency? Not the person you're replying to, but looking at similar viruses, there's basically never been a flu-like virus that has no short-term symptoms but serious long-term symptoms, however there have been rushed vaccines that had serious long-term symptoms.