Although I can't prove the sentence incorrect as such, it is stated in such a vague and alarmist way, that it could easily taken as an example of fueling the FUD?
You know crossing the road can kill too. You'll probably be fine, but I'm not going to lie and say you'll never be the one who gets hit. If I did lie to you, then you heard about someone getting hit, you should then not trust me and be hesitant about taking advice from me. Now, do you see how this works with something like flu vaccine? "It's perfectly safe" and "≥10%" get minor illness from it are not the same thing - saying the former when the evidence supports the latter means someone won't trust you for health advice even if you're objectively the best source because they can no longer be as objective about it.
Scarlett fever vaccine (decades ago) made me very ill. Flu vaccine this year seemed (it could be coincidental) to make one of my children ill enough to be off school. These are expected consequences.
It's also expected that some few people will die and others will have life altering conditions. These vaccines should still be used, because vaccines address the needs of a population in the first instance.