Seamas said:
A little while later she seemed angry at me and said something along the lines of "I know you don't want me to get flu shots, but I can't remember why. I can't remember having any adverse reactions to the shots in the past, so why shouldn't she get them?" I said that I thought it was up to her to decide whether or not she thought it was safe to get one, and that I never said I didn't want her to get one (I can't remember saying that).[..]
My first impulse was to print the article for her, give it to her and say "this is why I'm not getting a flu shot, and this is why you shouldn't get them either", but I think this would be counterproductive. It would make her feel bad and regret getting the flu shot, and it would build up my self importance, "see I was right", and she would resent me for it. Could I have handled this situation differently/better?
I agree, starting a whole big discussion post factum may be counterproductive and lead to hurt feelings. But it may be wise to bring up the subject again sometimes before the next round of shots is advertised.
The only place where you could have handled things differently, in my view, is the point when she asked you a question to just tell her why you think flu shots are bad (see quote above). It kind of sounded as a chip-on-the-shoulder statement, not real interest, and a covert attempt to make you responsible for her behavior. So I do see why you evaded the answer. The downside is that she could have perceived your reaction as "sulking", and that overall, the conflict wasn't fully dissolved.
The other way to deal with it would have been to answer, giving her the benefit of the doubt: perhaps, some people simply find it hard to read stuff, get the gist of it, and relate it to their lives. Clearly, your opinion (or your approval more so) is important enough for her that she acted somewhat shifty that she got the vaccine without you knowing it. There are ways to put your idea together concisely and in a way that's impersonal, yet strong, and really drive the point home. As an example, here is what I have said in the past: "Look, here's the deal. The vaccination is a wager. But you are NOT choosing between a terrible disease and not having it. The wager is between
a remote possibility of getting a disease, and a complication
right now. Think of the flu: you may not even get it this season, and if you do, it's not a big deal really if you take care of yourself. And you know how to take care of yourself, and, you have medicines, doctors, hospitals available to help you in that. But if you do get a complication from a vaccine, it's unpredictable, immediate, and most importantly -- you are on your own in figuring out what to do, and fixing the situation. The doctors will pooh-pooh you, the hospitals will not know what to do, any financial compensation from the government will be measly. This is what some of the articles I was showing you, talk about. Is it worth the risk? I think not."
It's her choice in the end though, so ... :/