JeffHamilton

Costs in the forms of suicide, drug abuse, domestic abuse, and the overall toll on the mental health of so many by limiting activities and freedom of action cannot be understated. Also the economic costs and rising inflation due to printing money without sufficient economic output to accompany it is sure to take a toll on living standards and overall quality of life. Children are also missing out on in-person school and being harmed significantly by periods of social isolation and lack of social experimentation that is important in a standard school setting.

The proposed benefits of lockdowns have little grounding in evidence and seem more of a way to punish the entire populace for the negligent actions of people choosing to be reckless by not getting the vaccine or otherwise. It might even be true that Lockdowns can promote spread of the virus, given that people tend to huddle up in tight spaces (aka their homes) when they can't perform most normal activities outside. This is how the Flu tends to spread in Winter, so this isn't too far-fetched.

Lockdowns have an adverse affect on the overall morale of people seeking an escape from what seems to be an inescapable situation. There is a line of thinking that even if it can save just a few more lives, lockdowns could be worth it. But at what expense to the lives of everyone, and for other maladies that may befall as a result of the lockdowns? Ultimately it must come down to rational risk-assessment and a reasonable assessment of the risks of being hospitalized or dying from COVID, and perhaps up to people to take precautions for themselves and the vulnerable people around them. It might also have to accepted that the virus is here to stay, and by no means can we eradicate it, and that it simply isn't reasonable to expect this. Perhaps we cannot save people that refuse to take their precautions, especially now that we have the vaccine available to all in the U.S. at the very least.

Yeah without military enforcement, you could almost say they are pointless. But can we really expect that to be effective? Can we expect this level of adherence? Won't it just have to be repeated?

If you help yourself and those you care about, those around you, you will never drag society down and you will be capable of doing more good in the world!

Words almost always fall short of expressing the most deeply-felt emotions and the most profound of thoughts. They are good for efficient transmission of thoughts and ideas, but oftentimes one finds themselves wishing there was a better way to say something...unless you live in Finland, and then words can describe everything ^_^

Their words are like building blocks. You can express any profound concept by building it with smaller ones!

On both sides of the aisle, people take positions that go against most or all of the available evidence produced by scientific studies and/or supported by sound theories.

A significant number of members of both the Left and Right for instance believe vaccines do more harm than good, which goes against countless studies and a long history of immunization from dangerous diseases.

• On the Left, vaccines are often seen as containing harmful, unnatural, artificial chemicals which go against nature.

• On the Right, vaccines are often seen as dangerous, rushed, untested, or experimental in one way or another, if not outright designed to control the population in one way or another (conspiracy).

Both of these explanations, and more, fail to take into account publicly available information about how vaccines are tested and how they work, and a number of logical fallacies.

Vaccines aren't the only issue at work when it comes to "Science Denialism"

Members of the Right/Religious Conservatives commonly flout several well-supported scientific theories in favor of their own theories:

• The Theory of Evolution - (in favor of Creationism)

• Old Earth - (in favor of Young Earth) or even Round Earth (in favor of Flat Earth)

• Climate Change - (in favor of non-Human caused Climate Change or Denialism)

Members of the Left also commonly flout several well-supported scientific theories in favor of their own theories:

• GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) - are safe to eat and advance agriculture for the better (in favor of understanding them as dangerous chemicals, being unnatural, and being produced by evil corporations such as Monsanto with malintent)

• Nuclear - is the one of the safest and reliable sources of renewable energy especially today (in favor of less reliable renewable sources, or claiming Nuclear is still dangerous in spite of modern research and evidence)

• Biological differences between the Sexes (in favor of gender as a social construct, or Sex as unimportant) - A mountain of research into various cognitive and social differences between Males and Females suggests that large number, if not the vast majority, can be explained by innate biology as opposed to being functions of social situations/culture. Other differences such as in the superior physicality of Males relative to Females that persist even after intense Hormone Treatments are often treated as irrelevant to the question of whether or not Biological Males should be allowed to play in Women's Sports.

Other issues such as Abortion divide the Left and Right into camps of people claiming either side to be "Science Deniers" by virtue of how they describe a fetus (as human, not human, not human enough, etc.).

It's a Wikipedia article but a good place to start on finding research for Sex Differences. So much available stuff out there though if it wants to be sought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

GMOs:

https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes

Nuclear:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Added some links for more advanced understanding of their efficacy and the truth of the arguments themselves. But there really is so much out there.

Cognitive Psychology has long-standing research on cognitive differences - strengths and weaknesses, between the sexes, finding significant differences in spatial intelligence, analytical intelligence, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence.

Maybe Gender isn't the right word though? Definitely has a sex-based biological basis though. And of course, these are just averages, so they do not reflect on any given individual.