The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment.
You're falsely conflating "principles for public health" with "public health advice". Principles for public health include protecting yourself against airborne diseases, which meant that anybody with some knowledge on the issue and ability to think for themselves should have disregarded "public health advice" when it contradicted "principles for public health". It also means we should be wary when "public health advice" doesn't line up with "principles for public health", and even more so when "public health advice" has been shown to be a deliberate lie when it suits the advice giver.
Following principles of public health is important, but you stretch too far and without basis to equate that to following public health advice. That kind of unthinking obedience to authority is how people commit atrocities by "just following orders"
That slippery slope must be lubed up real good for anyone to fall off it. Wearing masks, staying away from people, getting vaccinated, etc are far, far away from committing atrocities, and you know it. The point GP was making is in times of crisis, following advice from public health authorities, even if it changes, is the general best strategy. It’s extremely (that’s not even a strong enough word) unlikely they’ll be goading people into committing ‘atrocities’ when a novel pandemic is taking place.
For me, "the greater good" does not over-ride personal critical analysis.
It adds up to significant unnecessary suffering.
The it, I assume, refers to the topic at hand. Namely wearing masks. It does not in any way add up to suffering.
100 % disagree. The "social distancing" has caused state governments to take extreme measures closing down many business. The distancing has also put undo stress upon families. How many business have closed permanently? How many people are now suffering major depression due to these policies? How many people have committed suicide due to economic or relational hardship due to these polices? Masks and social distancing have done WAY more harm, than if we just ignored the virus and went about our lives.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Also, even if this is true at some point, as more people adopt your mindset of conformity, it would become very valuable to manipulate, which is easy to do (Goodhart’s law).
My media consumption is also extremely limited, and comes almost exclusively from left-centrist (HN top posts, Techmeme) sources.
1) regardless of how you might think masks are unobtrusive, enough of the population will consider it annoying to wear a mask when jogging or cycling that they won't exercise. Even during this pandemic, public-health officials think exercise needs to be encouraged for long-term public health and less demand on the healthcare system.
2) The science shows that the risk of COVID spread outdoors in non-public spaces is negligible. If a health minister requires masks in spite of the science, he harms his own credibility. That means that the population might also start to ignore those measures that scientists say are essential.
Definitely wearing a mask indoors or in crowded outdoor spaces remains relevant. But there are legitimate grounds for criticism here and nuance, it isn't just inane outrage or defiance.
This has never stopped mandatory cycle helmet laws.
> 2) ... risk ... is negligible.
This has never stopped mandatory cycle helmet laws.
Although many people vocally disagree with cycle helmet laws, nobody has ever called it an 'atrocity' or said that complying with these laws was a 'mindset of conformity'. This is a ridiculous exaggeration.
Actually it has, at least, it is one way the introduction of new laws in jurisdictions is opposed. There is research to suggest that mandatory cycle-helmet laws discourage healthful recreational cycling and commuting, and this has been used to suggest that the laws would ultimately be counterproductive from a public-health perspective.