"Relatively small" and "very low" are relative statements, and in a discussion of public-health policy like the present one, it is productive to consider them in the context of what the voting public is comfortable with.

In a number of countries, health ministers are complaining that the broad public is no longer observing restrictions, and the ruling party may even feel pressure to roll back restrictions because internal polling finds they could cost it reelection. If a voting public is unconcerned enough with those uncontroversially at-risk groups that have not yet been vaccinated, you cannot expect much sympathy for those relatively few examples of less at-risk demographics who end up with long-term symptoms, even if their risk is somewhat higher than a “thunder strike or an airplane accident”.

Perhaps don't use intensifiers when research doesn't excuse the use of them? :)

"Very low" minimizes the risk people associate with it and it's not appropriate for things that:

- needs more research

- current research doesn't support it's usage

In the context of assessing personal risk factors of readers in the midst of a global pandemic. I think it's kinda irresponsible.