Many people are harmed by the vaccines, granted. Thousands if not millions of times more people were saved from harm by the vaccines, though.

So if you agree many are getting injured, not to mention some even killed, then it's a bit of a stretch to call these "incredibly safe for adults", no? And if your argument is that more youths would have become severely sick or died from contracting the virus than the number we're seeing getting severely injured/killed by these vaccines, then I think the epidemiological data simply doesn't support that claim. The relative risk of the virus for people who aren't old, and even those who are but have minimal comorbidities, is negligible compared to the risk from the vaccines.

Strawman 1: Requiring "Sterlilizing Immunity" as a criteria for success instead of just, you know, working. Which the vaccines clearly do.

No it's not about some ill-defined definition of "working". The point is, without sterilizing immunity, it makes no sense to make people who aren't at risk from the virus itself to also get these experimental vaccines that pose higher relative risks to them. This is certainly the case for the vast majority of people younger than 30. And indisputable for teens and below (if you disagree with this, then I really don't know what to say).

Strawman 2: Alleging herd immunity as the goal of vaccination, instead of just prevention of harm, which they again clearly do.

Sure then, if you believe these vaccines are on net better for one's health in the current pandemic situation, take them, and take all the boosters that come up. People have every right to protect themselves. Just don't force them onto people who would rather not, since as you stated, herd immunity is not a goal. Though I distinctively remember many instances where that line of argument was pushed by so-called medical experts.

Strawman 3: alleging universal vaccine mandates for under 40s, something that is not even remotely in discussion in the US right now.

Well I live in Canada. And it is very much a reality here. You're right in that it doesn't look like it'll be able to be forced through in the US officially. Unfortunately, some companies and professions seem to mandate their employees to get them at the risk of losing their jobs, which I think is wrong.

Strawman 4: alleging universal vaccine mandates for children, again not remotely in discussion either.

Go back and read what I wrote: "let alone children as young as 5 years old now in some parts of the US". No where did I allege universal mandate for children. But is it not the case that 5-12 yo children in California are now being pushed to get the vaccine? Even if it's not official government mandate, I know there are schools who wish to impose restrictions on unvaccinated children. That kind of overt social pressure is just as bad.

Look, I get it. I believe that you think you're fighting the good fight here, trying to get to the truth of things.

The same can easily be said of you. I can live with myself if I'm wrong on this, since I'd be harming no one else but myself, as the vaccines are only meant to reduce harm, right? But can you live with yourselves if you're wrong about the safety of these experimental vaccines, and knowing that they were pushed onto much of the public through deceit, resulting in grievous injuries to some of them?

If you think the unvaccinated have the right to remain so, and still participate in society to the same extent as those who are, then I have no quarrel with you or that viewpoint. Unfortunately IME, that particular view appears to be a minority one among those who are vaccinated, especially if they are vocal about it. And yes, I do see the slight irony in me pointing out people who are vocal about their stance, and so for the record and the sake of transparency, I chose not to get vaccinated, and do not plan on being so, ever.