There’s only no harm in more data if you handle false positives perfectly. Surely, this is never the case, so there’s always some harm in more data.
It is much easier to say after surgery: “All is good; no cancer, we took out a small bleb of tissue we thought was a tumor” than to say “Sorry, we thought that was a benign growth and that is why we did not recommend surgery 6 months ago, but it turns out we were wrong—it was a malignant tumor that has now spread.”
(source: am doctor)
In reality, having data people are biased towards action.
But I agree, a holistic interpretation - including the population level "bad decisions" - is the ultimately correct approach. The caution I would urge is not to allow "no true scotsman" arguments, ie "well it's a good thing as long as people are careful".
Many people aren't going to be, which is part of the calculus.
For some reason many people will argue ad nauseum that this very obviously true and simple fact isn't true
That's not the correct way to think about it. The correct way to think about it is whether or not there's more harm with more data than the status quo.
Most medical professionals seem to think there's more harm than the status quo, but that doesn't change the fact that you're thinking about it wrong.