Science is not exact and 539,000 dead and 80,000 with permanent heart damage is legitimate cause for caution.
I completely agree with the overall sentiments you express in your post...the whole country has become tribal and everyone continues to take sides rather than have respectful discussions with each other.
I have highlighted a portion of your post for only two reasons, and that is (1) the whole #science thing got started by the left, and I FULLY agree with you that science is not only inexact, it is BASED on skepticism. The unfortunate result is that when one side goes to an extreme the other side follows the same pattern, and you get two elementary school kids on the playground shouting "but he started it first!" Usually it is difficult to get both sides to agree they have contributed to the problem...
The second reason is that when people cannot agree on facts, it becomes very difficult to have reasonable discussions. Unless people are willing to concede that the full facts are not completely understood. The numbers you quote are used in the media and by places like Johns Hopkins, BUT they have some major flaws which have been discussed over and over again. (Early on they counted any death who coincidentally had covid as opposed to deaths caused by covid, for example. This went on for quite a while before they adjusted the way ti was counted.) I have not seen any reputable source on the 80,000 with permanent heart damage, and honestly question the accuracy of that information.
The other huge problem with those numbers is they fail to take into account the costs to our society of the reactions to covid...the extra deaths caused because cancer screenings were stopped, because mental health sessions were stopped etc etc.The net net of all this is that the actual cost may have been much lower to our society had we chosen less draconian measures. Heck, I have been fully vaccinated but cannot get any heart screening appointments with also producing a negative covid test within 3 days of the appointment. Explain to me how that makes any sense?
I am simply saying that the facts themselves are not yet clear, and to quote those figures without some mention of the uncertainty around them is a bit misleading.
But, thank you for your overall sentiment which is in favor of a respectful and reasoned debate.