Using the Pfizer data (because its in an easier form) you're looking at a "serious adverse reaction" roughly 1 in 100,000 for all demographics.
Looking at qCovid there are many permutations where the risk of severe covid are lower than 1 in 100,000.
Its quite simple from that to show that for some demographics, you're at risk from a vaccine than covid.
A minority for sure but it exists.
Especially when you add on the fact theres no guarantee the vaccine will be effective.
And if you need boosters that risk is repeated multiple times.
Herd immunity forget it via vaccination. Simply won't happen. Its actually impossible to achieve with B.1.1.7 and the AZ vaccine in the ratio we're using it due to its lack of efficacy.
If we were 100% Pfizer there'd be a chance but we're not. We're majority AZ where even if every single person eligible takes it, we're still short of the HIT.
And thats with B.1.1.7. Given nature is going to ensure P1 and others spread and AZ is 100% useless at preventing infection there its a lost cause.
Its only going to happen with natural infection.
Again that isn't completely true. ALL vaccines have risks and these are no different. A small percentage of people will develop adverse reactions. Of those, some will be left with permanent damage and some will die.All ages, where clinical trials have shown benefits and safety.
So the directly result of vaccinating some does expose them to a risk.
That's why basic public health policy has always been to not treat or vaccinate people that don't need it. Its balancing risk.
Protecting someone from something they aren't at risk from whilst in the process increasing their risk of being seriously sick from something else is unethical and insane.
With people in their 20s we're already in "more likely to be killed by cows" territory. There is no sense at all forcing them to have a vaccine which (i) they dont need and (ii) even if it works, they're likely to be sick for a few days with side effects.