No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing.
> Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)?
There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up.
> "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1]
They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question.
> Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with.
We're not disagreeing on any numbers here. I doubt you consider your reasoning to be superior due to excessive complexity.