Y0uCann0tBeSer10us
From your link:
“‘77% of flu infections’ have no symptoms, say experts,” reports ITV News
The news is based on a large community-based study carried out in England, which found that most people with influenza (“flu”) don’t have symptoms, and even if they do, only a small proportion go to a doctor.
What this study actually means is that flu rates are much higher than we think we they are, because some people don't realise they have it and thus it doesn't get reported.
The people who DO report that they have flu WILL be suffering nasty, severe symptons (more than a runny nose), as they will be the ones who seek medical attention.
So what that study suggests to me is that the rates of flu officially reported represents the number of people suffering proper, nasty, symptons (NOT "mild"), but that there is also a large number of silent carriers wandering around who aren't included in those figures.
But those people will still be capable of spreading the virus, wont they?
So the idea that we could be silent carriers of the flu virus without realising it actually makes me feel more strongly about my dd being immunised, as it
a) suggests it is harder to avoid infection than I previously thought
and
b) suggests that my darling germ factory could infect a vulnerable person without me realising (we have friends with tiny babies, and we come in to contact with lot of very elderly people too).
Finally, I really disagree that the most common side affects (runny nose etc) are equal to the symptons associated with full blown flu.