Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy simply because it observes that in a formal logical sense, the credentials of somebody making a claim are irrelevant.

But formal logic assumes absolute and understandable truth or falsehood of facts among all parties. In terms of data analysis and interpretation, especially when both involve parties that lack the skills or training to do these things, trusting authority is likelier to generate positive outcomes than trusting one's gut or one's untrained analysis in most circumstances.

Just in case you are arguing in good fait, appeal to authority is not generally considered a logical fallacy. This is the first sentence on wikipedia: "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,[5] as some hold that it can be a strong or at least valid defeasible[6] argument[7][8][9][10] and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy."

In general sure scientists can be wrong, even in fields they are experts on. But overwhelmingly they are not.

Also as I mentioned, and you did not respond to, all of us use appeal to authority probably multiple times every day. One example is that most people go to experts to see help, for example lawyers, doctors, dentists etc. The other is that it is common at work to have an expert resolve an argument. It would of course be better to research 100% from first principles every time, but that is just not feasible to do all the time.

Hope that clears it up. Next time it would also be more constructive to bring your own arguments, not just say "appeal to authority". Logical fallacies are pretty often quite nuanced and it is very easy to use them incorrectly.

I, for one, have yet to see this proven. I have seen public guidance and the best practices modified as we came to understand more about the disease and its impact on the public.