The emphasized part is you moving the goalposts. If you want to assert that already low-risk individuals can further reduce their death rate using the vaccine (undoubtedly true), then it's entirely fair to ask whether doing so creates unknown, long-term risks.
For your younger people--who are unlikely to die from either COVID or the vaccine--the long-tail risks of a brand new category of vaccine are meaningful. My kids shrugged off COVID (before the vaccine was available) in half a day. We gave them the vaccines anyway, because we're sheeple. Hopefully, these new mRNA vaccines behave just like traditional vaccines and don't create any additional long-term risks. But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact.
Hard disagree. Unknown, long-term risks apply equally to both. However, I'd agree to mutually change the goal posts. Do deaths and long term damage for both vaccines and COVID-19 in the cohort.
> But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact.
We also don't have decades of experience with COVID-19...
And if you're risk of death is low enough that swamps the third term. But I think you're modeling this incorrectly. It's actually [value of vaccine] = [reduction in death] - [unknown long term risks of vaccine] + [unknown long term risks of novel virus]
And this case it almost always makes sense to take the vaccine.