The danger is that there's a big "we know better than you" component to it, which is used to justify hiding the truth. For example it might be true that the population in general would be better off if we save the masks for nurses. Then, the government should say "don't wear a mask, we need them for nurses". They should not say "don't wear a mask, they don't work". Also it might even be true that wearing masks reduces distancing, on average. Then, the government should say "wear a mask but pay attention that you don't stop distancing", and not "don't wear a mask, they don't work". The paternalistic PR-minded reasoning goes like
1) What do we want people to do?
2) How do we get them to do it?
The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time.
The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).
1) What do we want people to do?
2) How do we get them to do it?
The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time.
The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).