The data shows that through the entire pandemic up until this point, a woman under 40 in Germany would've been better off not taking the vaccine. The virus can not spread exponentially forever. Herd immunity would be reached with or without vaccine. The question then becomes, which parts of the population do you vaccinate and which parts do you risk infection with?
You are basically speculating that risking infection of women under 40 would be worse than vaccinating them, up until herd immunity is reached. Maybe that is true, but it's not obvious that it is true, and it may well not be true, judging by the numbers we have.
> I don't agree with this idea that we have to find data to weigh ridiculously unlikely harms for the individual.
If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine.
> Clearly a magical vaccine that was available and injected immediately would have killed more people than the virus would have in that scenario, but patients who refuse the vaccine in that scenario don't get to live in that scenario because they create this scenario.
I don't understand your point. I'm not talking about what would've happened under "magical" circumstances, but what would most likely have actually happened, had the vaccinations continued.
To be clear, even if the risk of vaccinations was far lower than the infection, the psychological impact of such "bad numbers" would've still been damaging to the campaign, leading to fewer overall vaccinations into the indefinite future. Humans are predictably irrational, and this needs to be taken into account.