Because one "low" is few orders of magnitude lower than other "low".

Right, but that's assuming you get the virus; to properly compare it you have to factor the chance you contract the virus in the first place. I'm not saying the math works out better, I haven't done it myself, but I'd bet most people would choose to try to avoid contracting

Yeah, I'm willing to avoid contracting the virus... by getting the vaccine, which certainly isn't as deadly as the virus has been. It isn't just the kill rate, though: I truly want to avoid the long-term complications that some folks are getting. I'll avoid the suffering that comes with the virus too, even without the complications.

most people in my experience are fed up of trying to avoid contracting and would rather the much lower risk of vaccine (bare in mind 10+m people have received this vaccine in the UK with no known issues)

I think probability of contracting the virus eventually is highest of all the factors involved and ultimately is not that far from 1.

Maybe because one probability is significantly lower than the other. Maybe because you just can't self quarantine because you cannot work from home. Maybe because you need to take care of other family members and don't want to put them at risk.

There's a lot of good reasons for choosing a vaccine even if the risk isn't strictly zero. And you also need to remember that receiving vaccination isn't mandatory. If you personally aren't comfortable with the risks you don't have to get vaccinated.

This makes me skeptical of the suspension, but I'm not an export on these matters and haven't done enough research to claim to have done my due diligence, so I'll refrain from either advocating for or against this step.

No, it's not like saying that