Please provide your evidence.
The fact that you ask for evidence for such an obvious thing shows how incredibly blinded you are. Your bias is demonstrated. You honestly are unaware that the left has the dominant control over such things? Honestly? Really?
I presented polling data, and data from US government websites which are regarded as credible.
LOL. 'Are regarded as credible', self declared credibility in polling from the side which told us that their polls definitively indicated Trump couldn't possibly win. Even if you want to say the polls are unbiased, which they obviously aren't, the data is represented in a clearly polarising way.
Perhaps you could assimilate the evidence and draw a different conclusion from something you regard as credible.
You're missing the point.
It seeks an opinion. If you saw information that clearly showed a situation that was significantly worse than previously the case, and noted how comparable nations sat by comparison, then reaching an informed opinion on the question is not difficult.
So now even you call it an opinion, rather than a clear fact, which is the exact point I was making.
It's about determining that despite there being information which is freely available and credible (ie. unambiguously verifiable), a large number people are able to disassociate from facts based on political stance.
That's what it's attempting to do, and obviously if you're willing to blindly believe and not keen on critical thinking you'll go along with it, but it has failed to do so. They're declaring that they've kicked a goal without even needing to move the goal posts because the goal posts weren't even placed anywhere to begin with. What are your measures of damage? I listed some possible measures before, they didn't give any, you still haven't, you've just vaguely said that since some tangible information exists, some people dissociate from it, without giving any specific examples. Even if you were to clearly define your question (which hasn't even been attempted here, it has been left vague, and any reasonable person can see that is deliberately so), such as saying "There will be more/fewer COVID-19 deaths in the future than there have been in the past", there is no factual answer, because the future is still yet to come, but in your example here, there isn't any clear way to define 'the worst'; it's deliberately vague to the point of being meaningless.
You speak like a dogmatic religious person; 'You must accept and affirm the narrative, you must be with us, or you are part of the heresy'. At least clearly definite your questions before promoting your side as righteous and the other side as imbeciles (noting that you shouldn't be looking at it as a dichotomy anyway, you should be looking at people as a spectrum, and what you are doing here encourages people to join or oppose you, which is exactly what is causing the polarisation).
Consider this; I am a qualified scientist, I am on the left side of the political spectrum, yet most people on the left would now consider me to be alt right, and people on the right tend to agree with or at least respect my political views. It's obvious who is causing the polarisation, it is those in the upper echelon putting out divisive nonsense like you have displayed here, knowing that people like you will dance to their beat.