This vaccine debate really boils down to personal health vs. public health.
Most of the time, vaccines are beneficial for both personal and public health. Take, for example, the Tdap vaccine - the risks of the vaccine itself are low (although not zero) while the risks of suffering from pertussis/tetanus/diptheria are high. It makes sense for almost every single person to get the Tdap vaccine. It has significant benefit to both the person and the public while carrying very low risk. As such, you hear very little arguing regarding the Tdap vaccine.
The trouble begins when you look at vaccines that are primarily beneficial for the public, but may not be particularly beneficial for given individuals. This is where the COVID vaccine falls. For the average healthy 30 year old, you can definitely argue that the benefits of the COVID vaccine are pretty minimal for this person and there are potential/real risks, especially with a vaccine we have limited data on. However, from a public health perspective, the more people who acquire a vaccine, and it's resulting immunity, the better it is for the general population.
This results in people arguing both sides of the isle.
Person 1: "I'm healthy and COVID poses very little risk to me, and it has been documented as causing cardiac issues. Therefore, I'm not taking it". = Personal Health Argument
Person 2: "Everyone, including younger healthy people, should get the vaccine because it will lessen the amount of COVID virus in the community, thereby protecting our older more vulnerable populations. Therefore, I'm getting the COVID vaccine". = Public Health Argument
Both of these people are right. They are just making an argument from different angles. Unfortunately, this realization does not help resolve the argument. But it should at least make each side realize that the opposite side is not composed of complete idiots as they might be prone to claim.