undeniable that they cause harm to some.
May be, there are people who have egg allergies, fair point.
This isn't a black/white topic and declaring that vaccines are safe
Declaring they are unsafe is not black and white thinking? We have to go by percentages. If a vaccine is 100 % effective in combating a deadly disease, but has a 1/1000 chance of triggering a complication, the math is simple: It is safe to use. It is not without a risk, but overall it is about 99.9 % safer than to get sick.
Here's a comparison, an analogy if you will:
A condom is about 100 % sure way to protect oneself from unwanted sexually transmitted diseases. Of course there is some chance of breakage, but we don't go saying condoms are hazardous because they give us a false sense of security and that it isn't a "black/white topic" because condoms are clearly not 100 % efficient, and "declaring them safe would be lazy" because they break and "cause harm to some".
But the vaccines are no 100% effective in combating diseases .During the first half of 2016, more than 40 students at Harvard University came down with mumps. All of the students had been fully vaccinated with two doses of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.
SCOURCE National vaccine information centre.
That all depends on the severity of the illness you would get if you got sick, no? Otherwise your math is missing a vital piece. Otherwise you are missing half of the equation. You are trying to draw a conclusion by only considering half of what you need to consider.
So let's imagine that you have a vaccine against the common cold. And 1/10,000 times (I made it 10 times less likely than your number) it is given it causes encephalitis and some degree of permanent brain damage. And, if left untreated, 1/10,000 times those who catch the common cold get pneumonia, and 1/100 of those people die.
And let's say that the cold vaccine reduces your chance of contracting the cold by 1/2 (about standard data for things like the flu shot.) So that means that without the shot you run a 1/ 1 million chance of dying from pneumonia, and getting the shot reduces that to 1/ 2 million.
So.
You can get the shot, and run a 1/10,000 risk of encephalitis and brain damage in exchange for dropping your 1/ 1 million chance of pneumonia to 1/ 2 million.
Or, you can not get the shot and just stick with that 1/ 1 million chance of pneumonia.
That's how you figure it properly.
Your description was, unfortunately, how most non-medical vaccine advocates see it, they presume 100% effectiveness that isn't there, and presume no side effects, which also isn't there, and presume death if the vaccine isn't given, which also isn't accurate. Given that panoply of inaccurate information, not surprising that they are so adamantly pro vaccine and treat anyone who questions it as daft, no?
And taking this flu shot you described is generally recommended for those who are in the risk group where the chances for a flu developing into a pneumonia is much higher, like the elderly. It isn't practical for an otherwise healthy adult to take the flu shot, for the reasons you mentioned. But where the risk is higher, it will become more reasonable to consider taking the shot.