after an initial period of getting used to the technology, the setup has been proven to work well, and as safely as any other setup currently flying.
I don't doubt that.
There were many new technologies implemented in the 320. Obviously most of these new technologies were improvements and overall the end result was a fine machine. However that does not mean all those new technologies were improvements. There is a chance some were in fact a step backwards, even if by a small amount. How can you pick out some anecdotal incidences about the 320 in general and conclude that one of those many new technologies (side sticks with no tactile feed back) is in fact an improvement? Particularly when there are a bunch of experienced pilots voicing their concerns?