I agree with you here.
I believe that the source of this complaint is our reluctance with communicating uncertainty, and it could be just my perception of the situation. Hell it could even just be me, specifically. For example, early on we should have not unequivocally said 'masks prevent transmission'. The data were not strong enough. What we did have was mechanistic laboratory data that suggest that masks may be effective at reducing transmission, and the real world effect on transmission had not been demonstrated. We should have said that instead. What we did was set up a situation for factions to form in an area that was uncertain, and because we did not communicate that uncertainty, we did not leave room for or tolerate discussion. Obviously this is not the only way we screwed up communication.Give me a single example of a scientist misstating COVID-19 research because the public demanded "answers" as opposed to uncertainty. The public complains primarily about overconfidence.
My post wasn't intended to be comprehensive (and neither is this one). I just picked out a few issues to discuss. If you want to discuss others, feel free to point me in that direction.You seem unacquainted with the ways that public trust has been repeatedly breached - which is strange, since many examples have been posted here.