I read that article before. The fatal weakness of its reasoning is that it only focuses on fatalities. The reality is that even if you got ill with the flu, you almost never died (under 0.1% fatality rate). Even the super-fatal pandemic flu of 1918 was about 5% fatal among those sickened. I doubt if it is feasible to get a statistically significant count of fatalities in a controlled study sample.
But even if you do not die, flu is pretty costly. It is costly in the time you spend miserable, sick and out of action. It is costly to the colleagues, friends and family that you in turn sicken. It is costly to society as a whole. Vaccines either prevent that sickening altogether or reduce its severity. That makes vaccination campaigns valuable to society as a whole -- even to the unvaccinated -- because any flu case prevented or shortened will eliminate yet another infection source. Since flu spreads, well, virally, stopping even one source is significant. That's why govt agencies tend to be on board, because they are worried about the health of the overall society.
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz