There is no way that we could know whether that's a myth simply because the vaccines have not existed long enough to know for sure.

By that logic, we could also argue—with the same degree of certainty—that the virus itself causes fertility issues, and therefore the vaccine prevents them.

True, except that there's a 100% chance of risk with taking the vaccine and a much less chance than that of actually getting COVID before it mutates into something less deadly and serious, as all plagues have done.

> there's a 100% chance of risk with taking the vaccine ...

Probability doesn't work that way. That's like saying I should buy lottery tickets instead of index funds, because with lottery there's a 100% chance of getting a chance of getting the first prize.

No, I'm saying that electing to not take the vaccine means I have to multiply the probabilities of complications from COVID by the chance I'll get COVID, while if I take the vaccine, I multiply the probabilities of complications from the vaccine by 100%.

> I multiply the probabilities of complications from the vaccine by 100%.

0% times 100% is 0%

By that same math, there is 0% chance of complications from COVID.

There is not a 0% chance of complications from vaccines. If you believe that, you need to look at the CDC's own data, as well as data from other countries.

It doesn't bring transmission to zero, but it significantly reduces it. It also sharply reduces the chance of infection, the severity of symptoms if infection does occur, and the chance of hospitalization or death. The head of a local hospital system called this vaccine among the most effective medical interventions—of any type—he's seen in his career.