Vaccinating those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people, as well as sick people staying home and lots of handwashing, is just good public health sense. Why should we have to do a specific study on it for each and every highly contagious disease? We know how flu is spread.
ETA: especially when the population you're dealing with tends to be unvaccinated because of unethical fearmongering.
My goodness, Katie, you're missing some very important facts!
FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate anyone with a vaccine that has poor efficacy.
FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people with a live-virus vaccine that could end up transmitting disease (FluMist).
FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people with a vaccine that prevents disease symptoms but does not prevent transmission (pertussis, in DTaP).
FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate 100 people to prevent one case of flu symptoms (not one death from flu--one CASE of flu symptoms), which is what the Cochrane Review concluded.
FACT: It is absolutely necessary to do a specific study on each and every vaccine for each and every highly contagious disease because scientists are unable to accurately predict the adverse reactions caused by injecting these vaccines. The old, live-cell DPT shot, the Urabe MMR, Rotashield, and Pandemrix are all examples of vaccines that caused unpredicted and deadly adverse reactions, which is why they were eventually pulled off the market. We know exactly how all those diseases are spread, but scientists still don't understand why some populations have deadly reactions to some vaccines.
Seems to me that the unethical fear-mongering is not being done by those who criticize the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccines. It's being done by those who want to push mandatory administration of an ineffective, not-safe-enough vaccine.