> 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 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.

Counterpoint: many atrocities have been made acceptable to the general population, in the name of "public health" (or at least, the greater public good).

For me, "the greater good" does not over-ride personal critical analysis.

The greater good in this case means following rules/mandates that do not in any way lead to an outcome of supporting atrocities. There is no valid critical analysis by which one concludes that not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing is a fight against atrocities.

>There is no valid critical analysis by which one concludes that not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing is a fight against atrocities.

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.

Masks have not in any way contributed to the problems you cite. Suicide numbers are nowhere close to the total number of Covid dead. There has been economic hardship caused by social distancing and mental health problems too have been caused by social distancing. Masks contributed virtually zero to this. Far more people would have died had we not implemented the policies that were enacted. In no way is social distancing an atrocity even if one assumes your distorted view of the severity of the negative effects of social distancing is correct.

Masks are a minor inconvenience but they affect millions. It adds up.

It adds up to something comparable to bringing up atrocities apt? I don’t see how. It’s not like the inconvenience of wearing a mask done billions of times leads to overall a massive inconvenience that becomes intolerable. This type of inconvenience is not additive. There is no compounding effect.

It adds up to significant unnecessary suffering. It’s clear to me that doing, e.g., human challenge vaccine trials was a much more cost-effective measure (nowadays just get the bloody vaccine and be done with pandemic), and masks are just a weak band-aid for which I have not seen much more evidence since the Slatestarcodex review (which called CDC on its bullshit very early: masks probably help a bit, but not much, and the evidence is weak either way), and they are being used first and foremost as a political signaling and psychological comfort device (remember the whole “masks more effective than vaccines” rhetoric).

Wearing a mask is not suffering. If you think this then you have a badly misconstrued idea of what the word suffering means.

Now you're just gaslighting.

You wrote:

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.

There's a fairly significant difference between the Tuskeegee Experiment, and having to wear a surgical facemask while in a supermarket.

> The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect

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).

Overwhelmingly we follow laws against public drinking, noise ordinances, littering, etc. How is following a mask mandate adopting a mindset of conformity that is different than following laws on littering? Consider the possibility that you have been manipulated to find outrage/concern/defiance over wearing a mask.

In my country, laws compelling mask wearing outdoors in non-crowded spaces have been criticized by scientists (often the same ones advising the government on COVID) for various reasons, e.g.:

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.

> 1) ...annoying to wear a mask when jogging or cycling...

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.

> This has never stopped mandatory cycle helmet laws.

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.

There are legitimate grounds of criticism but not legitimate grounds for talking about a mindset of conformity in the sense Siira meant.

Those laws are fixed norms against doing concrete bad things. A norm of listening to any bullshit some authority figure spouses is not a fixed norm, but a meta-norm to respect any new norms created by that authority.

My media consumption is also extremely limited, and comes almost exclusively from left-centrist (HN top posts, Techmeme) sources.

You should probably read more sources if you think that news aggregators (and Hacker News in particular) are left of centre.

What are some left-centrist sources then?

"Do what you're told to do, critical thinking is bad for your health." LOL