I think for some people it is too frightening to think about things going wrong, and comforting to think that the people who do think about that are just 'panickers'. Their instinct is to wait until the bad thing is right on top of them rather than to go through the experience of thinking about it in advance and feeling afraid.
For other people, their way of dealing with that fear is to find out as much as possible about the risk, and what they can do, and then to take some steps to reduce the risk. That's how they deal with the fear.
Years ago someone on here linked to research into those two groups and their different ways of dealing with what's essentially the same fear - it's interesting. Both groups are not unreasonably protecting their mental health, but they're doing it in different ways.
Meanwhile, governments are so terrified by the idea of 'panic' that they go too far in the other direction and discourage anything that might produce fear (not just panic, any fear at all), when actually in some risky situations you need people to feel a healthy amount of fear, in order to promote action. Governments shouldn't ever lie to people to scare them, but they shouldn't lie to them to reassure them either.
It doesn't matter whether it's heart disease (and prevention via diet), or risks of supply disruptions (and preparation via having three days worth of food in) - either way a healthy amount of fear, well short of panic, can prompt useful action to reduce risks.
Reassuring everyone that everything will be fine forever and nothing can ever go wrong, out of a desire to prevent panic, or on MN out of a fear of being seen as panicking, just gets in the way of useful action. Then if the bad things really do happen, everyone is less prepared and the outcome ends up being worse.