Excellent analysis. I would only add one factor that you seem to have omitted (or avoided*); fear. The regularity with which fear is used to shift the listener's disposition from intellectual consideration to fight vs flight brooding is truly alarming. Fear has been the underlying driver of the degradation of the public discourse for decades. But as Frank Herbert said (by way of Paul Atreides); "Fear is the mind-killer."

I think it's also worth mentioning that human beings, broadly speaking, are not really "smart" and "stupid". Like all things, we fall on a curve where the vast majority possess comparable intellectual abilities. But when you combine fear with ignorance, those otherwise intelligent minds start to spin. And with immediate and unbridled access to information that appears to validate fear, the intellectual reserve is diverted toward pursing "what ifs", in the (mistaken) assumption of acting in self-preservation. No nation is stupid. But nations are becoming increasingly ill-informed, and that failure of education is breeding neurosis. When fuelled by the incessant stoking of fear, neurosis tips over into paranoia, which is dangerous to both the sufferer and those around them.

Of course, I understand that fear is often used as an intrinsic motivator, and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, fear is not a component of scientific inquiry itself (even if scientific findings might invoke fear). So "sticking with the science" need not be a fearful proposition. It should simply provoke action and/or further inquiry.

*I'm fully aware that you probably just had an angle on the story that you wanted to pursue, and fear wasn't it!