When the scientists say "we need to do x right now or were screwed" and the governments say "were doing y by this date" and the two conflict, then you don't need a PHD to make that distinction.
Personally, if these circumstances were to arise, first thing I’d do is look into the qualifications of the scientists that are saying we’re screwed. Before taking sides, I’d want to look at their CVs, academic careers. I’d want to also look into voices of dissent, and at the qualifications of dissenters.
It is then possible, I agree, that I might form the opinion myself that we are probably screwed, and I might start encouraging government to think about unscrewing us. But how can children make up their minds which scientists are to be trusted and which not?
This is relevant to SARS-CoV-2. I’d not be surprised if scientific opinion started to diverge, leaving governments to decide which scientists to believe. There’s then the same danger, that the choice of paths is made based on public opinion and best chances of getting re-elected, which is the least scientific approach of all.