Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?
You shouldn't. It has only been tested "in cell culture and in mice". Its efficacy in humans will be determined in human clinical trials.
>Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?
This table shows that it's still effective "against symptomatic disease" and "against infection".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
If you're looking for an excuse not to take it when it eventually becomes available, that's a long way off yet and seems a silly thing to worry about.
What other possible points for such a question... are you suggesting they just shouldn't even be researching?
In what way is a treatment that helps even 10% not better than nothing, when nothing is the only other option in existence?
I see no admirable way to unpack this question.
If you make a claim for a new solar cell technology that doesn't degrade over a century, people can question whether that claim is true or not, without implying that solar technology should not be researched.
And there's certainly no need to speculate on people's intentions, like questioning if someone is making excuses for big oil.
Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.
This is my bar for a 'good' vaccine.
What the Covid vaccine provides is a fucking joke. And it pulls all other vaccines through the mud.
A vaccine that can target more strains at once may be more reliable than what we've got, which is why they're researching them.