I feel the government/authorities have to do better to get information to people, too often I find I have to start with a soundbite from a politician or news site and then wade through many more sources until I get to a point where I am happy with my understanding. Another example on top of yours about vaccines - yesterday Matt Hancock talking about a "new variant", and all it does it make people panic. It could have been said that lots of variants exist and that they all by and large have the same effect and that vaccines largely protect against multiple variants; indeed the more salient point was not the new variant it was the rise in cases.I think the important thing about the above article is twofold. Firstly the authorities really need to be communicating with people about this and the processes it has been through. Secondly, if "events" are likely, then they also need to be communicated transparently so that conspiracies don't emerge about cover-ups etc.
Communication is so important - though in fairness I also think it is difficult to get right. I think in most societies you are gonna get skeptics and edge case loons that don't believe anything unless empirically evident before their own eyes, but I think it's particularly prevalent in times where there is so much collective fear and misinformation and political posturing. Perhaps a more bottom up approach would help, engaging with folk in some way at a local level.