And ultimately, the disease the vaccine prevents is much more dangerous than the side effects. Rare reactions can kill you, but measles is much more likely to.

It’s like the people who refuse to wear seatbelts because they have the potential to harm you in an accident.

Yah, props for mentioning, all to often it's a question that goes unanswered in these discussions. I completely agree the pros outweigh the cons and it's better to eradicate some of these diseases. I fear that a big reason some who choose to not vaccinate do so is because of the lack of transparency about vaccine injury. They have a family member or close acquaintance that experienced it firsthand and the public discussion around it is often toxic to the point it feels conspiratorial with people only pointing to the Wakefield study (which was garbage so doesn't help either side). Researching it without a great understanding of it can return a lot of confirmation bias too.

Assuming you're talking about the Polio vaccine, that 1-in-100 stat is way off. It was never that bad.

The rollout for the Salk vaccine (the original polio vaccine) in the 1950’s was for 1.3 million children. It was probably the worst vaccine incident of all time because Cutter Laboratories, who produced roughly 200,000 of the doses, made defective batches that contained still living polio virus (and because of how vaccines are made now this is no longer an issue). Several thousand reported cases of polio, 200 permanent injured, and 10 dead.

Even if you were one of the unlucky people to specifically receive a defective vaccine, you still only had a 1/20000 chance of dying. If you look at the entire rollout then it was only 1/130000.

You're right about the 1-in-3 chance of dying from polio though, so even with it being one of the least effective and most dangerous vaccines ever mass produced it was still hailed as a massive success and won numerous people Nobel prizes.