I find this really scary. Such naive trust in "the authorities" & those with the loudest voices! How many governments & bullies have taken advantage of this kind of naivety throughout history?
The attitude appears to assume that the louder the claims & the more frequently they're repeated, the more reliable they are. Yet history (& common sense?!) shows us that that doesn't always follow. In fact, I'd say it's often the converse. The quieter, more cautious voices are, almost inevitably, going to be heard less, listened to less, & understood less. Yet they're also likely to be those acknowledging the sheer complexity of difficult issues. Inevitably, such voices are less appealing, because they're more challenging to engage with.
I think this is complicated further because, in a sense, he's trusting "expert" opinion at a time when experts are being, often wrongly derided & dismissed - & expert opinion does matter.
But in this instance, the chilling effect created by the unthinking majority to which he appears to belong means other "expert" opinion is increasingly hard to access. Full-stop. And that's dangerous.
Thinking people passively accepting that the more dominant "expert" voices are "correct" to the extent that they're prepared to engage in silencing other "expert" voices without understanding why? That's where the slippery slope towards authoritarianism starts.