Not all information is available in such a form and not everything labelled as scientific is trustworthy. We all. and this includes researchers, have to have a starting point perhaps in theory or in observation, maybe of single events, but we then must be able to think critically about the issue. Simply repeating what is said in research would be very boring, we learn from discussing evidence, it allows us to use the expertise of everyone involved. Having said that, the principle you restate is a good one, these publications have at least some sort of review of quality of the information it contains and the articles are written in a way that should help in a critical review.
The management of Covid-19 is embedded in science, but, as yet we can't claim to have many definitive answers. The actions taken by individuals or governments are often based on the selective information of sources with clear biases. There are then moral, ethical, social and economic issues to consider, exactly the same issues that scientists have to take into account in the methods they use and in their conclusions, we ignore this at our peril. I think discussing giving the vaccine to young people, who are unlikely to directly benefit and when the balance of risk/benefit assessments offers less support, has been discussed in the media and is useful. It's become even more relevant as vaccine mandates are being introduced across the world, the issue is ultimately an ethical one and the science uncertain, but, we can't have scientists campaigning for more evidence based government and then dodging difficult issues.
