This is just an excuse to not think for yourself. Blind faith in institutions may be reassuring but history tells us the reality is that they often let us down.
Fortunately, we get to compare their actions to reality though.
You are assuming that your interpretation of reality is the objectively correct one. If you disagree with the science, it's because the science is wrong. Correct?
For example, do you really need an 'authority' to tell you that the credit default swaps that caused the GFC were a bad idea? The 'authorities' (i.e. the credit ratings agencies) decided that packaging up a load of very high risk debts actually made them AAA ultra low risk.
How did you arrive at the objective knowledge that they were "a bad idea"? Did you bring it forth ex nihilo from your brain alone, or did you derive it from sources that you selected based on your personal political views and subjective bias?
What told you that these sources were the correct ones, and their spread sufficient for your objectively correct judgement? Did the idea come to you as divine inspiration, ex nihilo spark of genius, or did you derive it from other sources which you selected based on your personal political views and subjective bias?
Prior to the GFC, do you believe they were 'right' to do this, and the individuals who pointed out the problems were 'wrong'?
Honestly? I didn't know enough about finance, risk management, or the nature of investment portfolios to form a coherent opinion, and I wasn't motivated to do so because I didn't feel that interested in the fine details of US economic policy.
I only received the opinion that it was a bad thing after the fact, from experts condemning these practices after the fact, with credentials I trusted.
Were you well versed in the fields of financial instruments or risk management at the time? Did you know this was going on before it became a problem?
I believe it is incorrect to tell people who are not sick to not wear masks as they have said numerous times (there's a link to a video in one of my posts if you can be bothered to search for it or you can google it).
As the text I have provided above suggests, they have since qualified that statement to mean "non-medical masks" instead of "no masks at all", and have revised their guidelines.
Are you saying that it was wrong by them to do so?
Personally, I am of the opinion that it is good for asymptomatic carriers to be wearing masks in public. You may agree with the WHO, that such people should not be wearing masks as they are the 'authority', but that makes little sense to me.
I agree with the WHO that asymptomatic carriers should not wear
medical masks, since that would take away from essential personnel who really do need them, but should wear regular masks in order to avoid spreading the disease.
Lots of people have high quality, non-medical masks they use for DIY, etc. these people should be wearing them and the WHO should be educating people to wear them properly, not saying "well they might be too dumb to use them properly so better off without".
Then there are lower quality of improvised masks that don't harm medical professionals, yet offer some degree of protection, people should be wearing these.
Yes, that's why the WHO recommends wearing non-medical masks, as the text I provided says.
I agree with that recommendation. Do you?