Bram Stoker didn't invent vampires, and the creatures and mythology associated vastly pre-date the antisemitic culture surround his novels.

Don't bullshit me that you're talking about the Vrykolakas or whatever when you said "vampire". Beyond that, "vampires" represent a solved problem, even shitty books like Twilight deign to have the nuance to have vampires who refuse to harm people!

They're perfectly comparable. They are not ontologically malicious, but in the majority of their incarnations, they are completely divorced from human mortality or ways of thinking. Creatures that look like people, but do not think like us or share a remotely similar moral framework.

Then it's not comparable. The demons generally understand people pretty well and abuse that fact. There are mischievious "Fae" that tend to play tricks, but they are usually not evil, and certainly not justifying literal fucking genocide by saying that even an orphan begging for mercy is just another pest to be exterminated.

(Plenty of mythological fairies are ontologically evil on top of that).

Some are evil, but by the very nature of most of the folklore and the alien nature of the fairies, that they have been encountered as evil is not enough to establish that they are ontologically evil. We have no reason to believe that a Redcap, for instance, could not be reformed in just the same way as a sapient vampire could. Sometimes groups have a long history of being in violent conflict, that does not mean it could not be any other way and you usually do not find in folklore an insistance on such a conclusion (usually they stay more in the domain of pragmatic advice or the morality of a more immediate situation).

Even worse than a simple narrowness of thought, this need to make superficial tropes immovable pillars of the core of a creature's being is a manifestation of reaction, a measure literally only conceived of to oppose critical thought such as "What if we talked to the Redcap? What do they really think and feel?" because that'd be too pro-social to the fuckers in fantasy who just want everything to be a Crusader fantasy about cutting down hordes of subhumans.

Which incidentally might be connected to interesting fact that the more insidious a creature is portrayed as being, the more likely it is going to end up being a direct and deliberate racial allegory (see were-hyenas, for instance) rather than, well, a more deniable racial allegory.

The closest you can get in fairy folklore to the message in Frieren is with Changelings, which is incidentally reactionary as fuck and in some cases appears to be an articulation of the superstitious slaughtering of infants with birth defects and other abnormalities, such as an en caul birth.

Because the question is not "Is this person on the internet forbidding [something already written] from being written?" or "Have people written this before? Long enough ago that we can just call it culture with no further interrogation?" Socialism is the rutheless criticism of all that exists and the question is "Is this trope reactionary in nature?" To which the answer is "Yes!" and you have not done a thing to push the needle away from that conclusion.