Your use of statistics don't even apply to reality. They assume that the alternative to taking the vaccine is getting the worst strain of Covid
You're many times less likely to die if you get the vaccine. This assumes you're medically able to get the vaccine, but the assumptions stop there.
Getting the vaccine makes it significantly less likely you will contract the disease and spread it to other people. This alone should be reason enough for people who aren't assholes to get vaccinated if they're medically able to do so.
Getting the vaccine makes it significantly less likely you will suffer serious illness or death if you end up contracting COVID-19. This is true regardless of your age and other health conditions, assuming they don't preclude you from getting the vaccine in the first place.
Getting the vaccine makes it significantly less likely you will suffer long-term effects from COVID-19 if you end up contracting it, regardless of your age, your health, and the severity of your illness.
It isn't completely clear what you're suggesting here, but COVID-19 exists, COVID-19 variants exist, and approximately 11,000 people globally continue to die from COVID-19 everyday. About 90% of them are unvaccinated.
As for my reference, I posted a study that revealed greater illnesses coming from vaccinated people than what is expected of the public in general.
You posted an article that isn't reputable. It makes unsubstantiated claims (among others) about the vaccine causing suicides, it appears to cherry-pick data with small sample sizes, it isn't a controlled study, it isn't peer-reviewed, it contradicts nearly all reputable research from all over the world, and I can't even check the Japanese language primary sources to see if the data is even correct.
When you cherry-pick one disreputable article that supports your point of view, and you ignore the mountain of reputable research that contradicts it, you should probably ask yourself if your biases are clouding your judgement. Even if your article had been reputable (it wasn't), you would have still needed to ask yourself why <1% of reputable sources said one thing, and why >99% of reputable sources said another thing.
I find it hilarious that you keep irrelevantly yelling "but your country" in response to my points about scientific data, as though the research I'm talking about isn't global, but you're the only one here cherry-picking one bad source from one place.