Yes, context matters, and sometimes even irrational instincts can end up being correct, especially under uncertainty, which was definitely true of the first few

Yes, context matters, and sometimes even irrational instincts can end up being correct, especially under uncertainty, which was definitely true of the first few months of COVID. I'm less concerned about purely useless interventions, than counter-productive ones (or: a useless intervention A, which creates a psychological security blanket that subsumes motivation for high-yield intervention B). Even stranger, I've also seen individuals under-react and over-react at the same time! ("Sure, I attended $LARGE_PUBLIC_EVENT, but we all wore masks, except while eating, and I've been taking lots of Vitamin D.") For the over-reactors, I think aligning social norms with the best-science-for-now is achievable with simple rules and consistent messaging (that cohort wants to keep busy with rituals and precautions and social enforcement). For better or worse, our culture got a few simple memes to stick: wears masks in public, six-feet social distancing, outdoors is safer than indoors, limit socializing to "pods". For those in denial, that's a thornier problem, and I frankly don't have any ideas. Whatever the context, challenging someone in denial tends to result in them doubling-down on it. Sometimes social pressure or law enforcement can cajole someone into adopting a rule they don't like; but it can just as easily backfire into tribal counter-signaling, or individual "bravery signaling" (itself a sort of psychic ward against fear). And in fairness: it's not hard to imagine counter-factuals where the official recommendations really are useless or worse ("duck and cover").