1. Recency bias & opportunity cost: When you're intentionally not working on a problem space given higher priorities, you still want to collect incoming feedback. This aids future work and if the feedback already exists, bump it up the priority list. When the team kicks off projects, you'll want to assemble as many data points and a core source will be scanning through your backlog.
2. Reactive development: If I chose to bypass the discipline of logging feedback (which I'd love to do from an energy conservation perspective), I'd find myself working on the most recent and lowest-hanging fruitful tasks, neglecting the broken windows that have long existed.
3. Team knowledgebase: If there's a single point of responsibility to collate feedback and deliver solutions, then I think the OP's point can stand as it's viscerally stored and probably just more efficient to have a fire and motion strategy.
When there's a team involved, there needs to be a shared corpus to asynchronously log and retrieve data points. Duplication is better than no data and can provide insights when written from different perspectives. There's no way about it, this backlog will quickly get big.
This can be taxing and messy but dealing with complex systems and people is messy. For well-oiled teams, it's necessary to have good housekeeping of your backlog. This includes archiving irrelevant tasks, de-duping tasks, regularly prioritising and ensuring you're making the best use of your tool.
What can be helpful for organization is to deem everything initially as "for consideration" and have a small "up next" & "bugs" column that should contain no more than 5 items each.
The tool itself is insignificant compared to good backlog maintenance.
What might be missing is a facade on top of your exhaustive backlog that surfaces comprehensible information that allows you to dive deeper (eg search, and see similar tickets) when necessary.