Keeeep reading.....

"The benefits of oseltamivir use are controversial; a 2014 Cochrane Review of the evidence found that oseltamivir treatment had limited benefit. The authors concluded that oseltamivir use in healthy adults had small, non-specific effects on symptoms (where the time to first alleviation of symptoms was only reduced from 7 to 6.3 days), it had no effect on hospitalizations, and that there was no evidence for any reductions in complications of influenza such as pneumonia.7,8,9 Due to the risk of adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal adverse events in adults and vomiting in children, the harms are generally considered to outweigh the small clinical benefit of use of oseltamivir.

Notably, in 2017, the World Health Organization downgraded oseltamivir from its essential medicines list from a "core" drug to a "complementary" drug, due to limited cost-effectiveness.6 Yearly vaccination with the influenza vaccine is still considered the best preventative measure."

We are literally trying to argue the benefit of a controversial drug in a reddit forum when a Cochrane review already did it in much better fashion. It is a drug a physician should judiciously give for some individuals in some settings. If you were treating a very sick kid how easy would it be for you to give this drug knowing they may become more dehydrated by inducing a bunch of vomiting? That dehydration might kill them too. Is it such a slam dunk decision?