One fallacy is to believe that 'science' is one single blob, where all of the 'scientists' agree. An epidemiologist is going to have a very specific (although likely accurate) view of a problem, while an economist is going to have a different view. Both views can be true, but explaining the possible interactions between those two views to the general public is almost impossible.
Consider that by
some measures (source picked at random), half of the Canadian population can't read at a high school level. Consider that
A&W's third-pounder burger failed because people didn't understand that a 1/3 of a pound is larger than 1/4 of a pound: "3 is smaller than 4, why are you charging more money for less meat?"
Now try to explain exponential growth to any of those people. Or the difference between correlation and causation. Or the difference between absolute and relative risk: "This thing has double the risk of this other thing!", when the risk of either thing is .001% and .002%.