That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about getting vaccinated to protect other people, not oneself.
The young people who died probably all had comorbidities, so for a young person without any comorbidities, the risk profile is probably very different.
Anyway, your arrogance is impressive. You haven't really grasped the issue, but you are absolutely full of yourself.
Your comparison does not make sense, though. The question is, how many people who are not at risk from the disease do you have to vaccinate, and how many people are there who can not be vaccinated and would contract Covid-19. Let's say with your numbers there are thousands of (young) people who die from the vaccination. How many people who can't be vaccinated would die if those young people would not get the vaccination?
What other risky things to we ask citizens to do, exactly? People certainly choose to do other risky things. But how many are mandated?
I should have added - risky for the person who might contract the disease.
In any case, yes, both disease and vaccination have risks, that should be weighed against each other. Matters are complicated because risks differ among different age groups.
There is a nonzero risk to the vaccination. I really don't understand why you consider the plight of the people who can't get vaccinated, and dismiss the plight of the people who die or come down with severe disabilities from the vaccination.
Mandating medical interventions is pretty much taking away someone's liberties. And your opinions about other people's opinions are also irrelevant as an argument.
It's not a harmless vaccine. You want to mandate vaccinating people who are at no risk from the disease, and expose them to unnecessary risks. And that means children - all to protect sick people who for the most part are already isolated. They are in hospitals or sick people homes, where you can protect them in other ways.
Also the comparison with other vaccines does not automatically make sense. All vaccines are not the same. At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. There is a reason why people are not simply being vaccinated against all possible diseases.
"One can either be part of society or not. Society has minimum requirements if one wants to participate"
You make it sound as if there is a fixed, god given set of rules for society. That's not the case. Societies rules are constantly being negotiated by society.
So your argument is not an argument at all. It boils down to "you have to follow the rules because you have to follow the rules".
Except that the people who are worried can simply get vaccinated themselves.
There may be a few people who can not be vaccinated (old and very sick), but it hardly seems appropriate to restrict billions of people just to protect those few. It would be more efficient to isolate them, which most of them probably already are (in care homes or hospitals).
Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.