> the risk of dying from the vaccine for young women was higher than the risk of dying from the virus

Do you have a good source you'd recommend for this? I couldn't find this bit of info from the first few articles I skimmed.

> After the concerns about AZ turned out to be justified and AZ being banned for certain age groups you'd think that people would get a clue about unconditional vaccine cheerleading.

Who is unconditionally cheerleading which vaccines?

In Norway:

Women < 60 years: 10 deaths from covid-19 in total [0]. Four vaccine-related deaths were reported in young, relatively healthy women. Details on three of the vaccine-related deaths have been published [1]. One of the stories had been made public [2].

The astrazeneca vaccine was put on hold, if not, it's not hard to imagine the number of fatalities surpassing the number of covid-19-related deaths, even when ignoring comorbidities

[0] https://www.fhi.no/en/id/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/dai...

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882

[2] https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/GaOr3l/monica-aafloey-hansen-54-...

Where in [1] does it state that 4 died? There seems to be 2 women who died. Patient 3, a man who were discharged and healthy. Patient 4, discharged, healthy. Patient 5, is unclear I think, wether it survived or deceased.

Edit, please correct me if I'm wrong, it's very important that we don't spread false information regarding this.

Edit 2: There seems to be four, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219441.shtml

Yes, it should have been stated explicitly; three fatalities are reported in the study. The forth was reported in the media [0]. Female, 34 years old, no history of chronic disorders.

[0] https://www.nrk.no/innlandet/helsearbeider-pa-tynset-dode-ti...

In australia for example, where there is currently zero community transmission, and AZ was the preferred rollout for most of the population, assuming only women are vulnerable (not true) about 8m women below 50 (the age for which the government instituted the cutoff for alternatives) so at 1:500,000 risk of some injury (edit - originally said death) that’s 16 people who, ceteris paribus, wouldn’t be at any risk

I think your argument can be better if you qualify your assessment of risk for Australian women with the temporal constraint of "for now". Because transmission is low in Australia they may be better off waiting for a safer choice. However eventually travel will return and it is highly likely that the virus will still be around.

You mean, like 'ceteris paribus'?