"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.