"Dream in a pragmatic way." - Aldous Huxley (in an interview in 1962)
How do we make sense of current events? To a first approximation, let's split people's responses into two groups: the skeptics and the adherents, although you prefer other identifiers. The most common way to differentiate these two groups is how a person responds to an event involving large established organizations (eg. governments, corporations). Skeptics distrust/doubt/oppose the position or explanation provided by the organization, while adherents accept/believe/support it.
Now don't confuse skeptical with fringe or extremist. If we take "mainstream" to refer to the most common or some weighted average position, then for any given topic, the mainstream may end up on either the "adherent" or "skeptical" side. For example, the position "I can spend my money better than the government" is certainly mainstream (at least in western culture), although it obviously relies on a level of skepticism with respect to the government. Similarly, "we should not genetically alter human fertilized eggs to select for certain characteristics/genes" is undoubtedly a mainstream opinion, and yet it is fundamentally skeptical of scientific and medical abilities/progress.
Similarly, don't imagine adherents are merely puppets jumping on the bandwagon only to get hoodwinked by some covert cabal. By virtue of sheer numbers, large organizations and groups of people have access to far more information and perspectives than any individual may hope to process. Although your own research in the matter may have left you unconvinced, a conclusion supported by a collective may well incorporate additional information that, if you had the time and means to examine, would dissolve any doubt.
Granted, some seemingly single-minded, opaque organization with possibly hidden or even nefarious motives hardly inspires trust, especially to an outside observer. Even without invoking nefarious puppetmasters in the shadows, perverse incentives may overpower good intentions, and even with the best intentions mistakes still happen occasionally. However, it bears remembering why organizations form in the first place: to pool resources and collaborate towards some shared goal. So corruption and misconduct are necessarily an exception rather than the rule, otherwise, organizations generally couldn't function and wouldn't make sense in the first place.
However, the generally larger, more coordinated support networks and prominent voices to guide the narrative enjoyed by adherents doubtlessly affect how their arguments are shared and develop. This top-down growth juxtaposes the bottom-up growth generally seen in skeptical arguments. Adherents usually start from apparent agreement and collaboration while skeptics emerge in opposition to their perceived surroundings. The most skeptical of revolutionaries tend to stay on the edges of society, and while they may occasionally grab the headlines, they're usually sandwiched between more conventional modes of thinking. While for any given topic, either side may be more common, there's a categorical distinction in how arguments from either side spread and grow throughout society.
Today, there appears to be a slight correlation between skeptical and conservative positions. However, given the wealth of different views and arguments buzzing about, the signal-to-noise ratio is rather poor, so perhaps my biases have gotten the better of me there. In any case, we should be very wary of any specific political or socioeconomic leaning we might prescribe to either the skeptics or adherents. Ask anyone living through the Russian Revolutions whether skeptics tend to be conservative or right-wing. Then compare that to German politics around twenty years later and tell me where's the link between politics and skeptics. Judging by a long and storied history of skeptics conflicting with adherents all over the world for all imaginable reasons, I think it's safe to treat any perceived correlations between specific ideologies and skepticism as spurious and merely a byproduct of our Zeitgeist.
No doubt we can come up with skeptical and adherent views for any given topic, no matter how poorly one side may be represented in society. Depending on the side the methods and mechanisms employed to grow and develop may be very different, but ultimately either side can grow to become the coveted "mainstream" or accepted position in a community. With the rise of particularly potent tools for information dissemination, such as the internet, digital media, and social media, skeptical arguments can spread essentially as quickly and effectively as adherent arguments that traditionally benefited from stronger broadcasting capabilities. We are approaching parity in whose and what information can be distributed how effectively, which makes filtering out the useful information from the noise all the more challenging.
Name the topic, and choose your side - you're either with us or against us. For the good of humanity, fight for the truth! Fly your colors! Pick your poison!
A very sudden, large change in someone's daily life is bound to result in lots of questions and analysis. The more dramatic and rapid the change, the more we seek to understand how such a change could happen. If people suffer as a result they will be especially inclined not just to look for but to demand a satisfactory explanation.
When you get fired you are much likelier to demand an explanation from your boss than when they give you a raise. When your car suddenly breaks down you are far more likely to spend time, energy, and money trying to understand what happened and fix it, than if the car has not had a single issue for several years (despite the latter being far less likely). If a novel invention dramatically changes the way orthopedic surgeons do their work you might not even hear about it, while if some national politician is assassinated, it's almost inconceivable that you won't hear about it from all sides.
The COVID pandemic is an excellent example of a specific event that quite likely directly affected/affects every single person in the world. Many are affected negatively, be it by contracting/spreading the disease themselves, a loved one dying or suffering, losing their job, being forced to dramatically change their daily life, etc. Nevertheless (as in every event), there are some individuals that benefit overall. Perhaps they got to spend more time with their family, they invested in companies that grew and expanded, they took the time to learn a new skill they never had the time for previously, etc.
When it comes to lockdowns, masks, vaccines, and the like, the familiar pattern of arguments emerges. The adherents make arguments for why lockdowns and mask mandates are necessary, why we should all do our best to get the vaccine as soon as possible, and that we can return to normal afterward. The skeptics doubt the need for lockdowns, question the infection rates and perhaps the fatalities as well, maybe they distrust the efficacy of the vaccines, they refuse to wear a mask or follow lockdown rules.
I am quite confident that proponents of either side have compiled virtually endless lists of evidence and examples from the most knowledgable, respected experts and sources imaginable in support of their claims. No doubt both sides can also provide colorful, perhaps even insightful, criticism of the opposing side, including identifying flaws in the reasoning, missing or misleadingly presented evidence, discrediting opposing "experts", maybe even including in-depth diagnoses of opponents to understand where and why they got everything so wrong.
Depending on your media diet, you are likely more exposed to one side significantly more than the other. Let's call that side the dominant side, while the opposing side is the minor side. Even with a passing familiarity with the topic, you could probably quickly recognize arguments from either side. Perhaps more interestingly, no matter what side of the fence you claim to be, you can no doubt show me some examples of unfair caricatures or deliberate misrepresentations of both the dominant and minor arguments.
Independently of which side you choose, you are certainly aware of which aspects of your side are more convincing and where the weaknesses lie. Sure you can emphasize the strengths of one while neglecting any weaknesses, to present the position in the best possible, albeit misleading, light. For added effect, you can throw out any positive elements of the opposing view and exaggerate the downsides.
Is that your goal, though? To purposely mislead me? If so, then I am disappointed. I have come to understand our present predicaments and clear things up, not have things purposefully obfuscated for dramatic effect, or some imaginary notch on your belt.
Perhaps I'm overestimating you. Perhaps you are genuinely unaware of any weaknesses to your argument, and can't even fathom there to be an imperfection to be found. Then it seems I have found a fanatic who explicitly or implicitly refuses to consider any deviation from the dogma. No matter, let's just preface our discussion with "for argument's sake", and go from there. Perhaps you haven't really given it much thought and you have nothing else to add. No problem, your uncluttered mind may provide a fresh take upon some reflection. In fact, both directly and indirectly I have not once come across someone who doesn't have quite a bit of insight to add to just about any topic - it's just a matter of poking and prodding them in the right direction.