There are many ways of perceiving risk.
You could just decide any risk of death, however remote, as the direct result of a vaccine is too much for you to cope with, as the consequence is so serious, even if phenomenally rare. The warnings pregnant women are given about the risks of, eg, toxoplasmosis or listeriosis, make me think of this. Personally, I found the stress and anxiety caused to me by being told about the horrible things that could happen if I got these infections during my first pregnancy, when I was highly anxious and terrified of the idea of being somehow responsible for any harm that came to my unborn child, however unlikely, caused far more harm to my state of mind during my first pregnancy than was remotely justified by the actual risks. I therefore think it was massively unhelpful to have told me about them, as I would have had a happier pregnancy without information more likely to be scaremongering and pointless than helpful to me, given how remote the chances were of me getting toxoplasmosis or listeriosis and this killing or maiming my baby, in the first place. I wasted time panicking about gardening and food products because I was so terrified of the dire consequences I simply didn’t care how unlikely they were to happen, I just felt I had to make certain they could never possibly happen because I would be unable to cope with the consequences of them happening now that knowledge had turned something that would just have been extremely bad luck if I had got it before being told into something I might now forever feel was “my fault” for not being careful enough.
Alternatively, you could just look at the risk and decide it’s such a small risk, you don’t care about it, even if the risk is of fatal consequences. After all, plenty of people never play lotteries on the same type of logic - that they are astronomically more likely to be a waste of money than to win you great riches, so not something to be bothered about.
Alternatively, you could just weigh up the objective personal risks and benefits. With a vaccine, what are the personal benefits to be weighed up against the personal risks? When doing this, some people seem to forget that a societal benefit is not mutually exclusive from a mutual benefit, as the two significantly overlap. Some people, for example, ask questions like why should they risk themselves to protect others, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that society opening up, hospitals being less busy, travel being allowed again, job prospects improving again, people feeling relaxed around each other again, are humongous benefits to them personally as well as to the rest of society, and it has been shown time and again that people seriously underestimate how easily virus mutations and uncontrolled spread in any age group can mess plans up, because of a failure to comprehend what the magnitude of those risks actually is (even though proven to be a greater risk every single time it has happened so far than our leaders thought it would be). The calculations on whether personal benefit is outweighed by personal risk also fail to factor this bit of the analysis in properly, as the mathematics of that is too uncertain to be able to work it out (especially as dependent on the leadership in the country you live in and the prevailing attitude in the majority of the population).
Alternatively, you could be an unusually rare sort of person who is utterly selfless and would have a vaccine regardless of the personal risk to you, just because society as a whole would benefit if everyone were vaccinated regardless of personal risk. I’m not sure this sort of person really exists in this purest of forms!