Why don’t we listen to the information too, and decide for ourselves by thinking critically? Maybe even change our own minds sometimes? None of that is beyond my reasoning abilities, and I have a hard time believing that it is beyond yours.
By the way the GP is criticizing the “appeal to authority” fallacy, and you are criticizing a form of the “argument to moderation” fallacy.
"Appeal to authority" -- which is a huge red flag when it's brought up in a discussion, because it's usually an attempt to elevate nonsense as if all voices are equal and things like expertise and training/dedication aren't pertinent -- has zero relevance, and seems to be misunderstood a hundred times for every time it is actually understood.
An appeal to authority is disputing widely understood information by citing an authority as if it is an override. e.g. "my doctor told me that vaccines don't work": Against hundreds of thousands of experts and professionals, and a widely understood body of evidence, someone cites a dubious authority as a counter argument.
"My plumber says that lead makes you grow strong bones" "My accountant says that compounded interest is a myth". "My cousin has a chemistry degree and he says that global warming isn't real".
Does that somehow mean that every layperson needs to fill the world with their hot take of noise about COVID-19? No, not at all. This does not follow.
The argument to moderation claim makes even less sense, and I'm not sure you understand what it even is because it's woefully out of place.
> an attempt to elevate nonsense as if all opinions are equal
This is precisely the “argument to moderation” fallacy.
I disagree with the rest, and will not comply with any part of your recommendation. If you think my opinion is “noise” then it is probably best for you to ignore it.
I’m very happy that we get lots of opinions from non-experts.