Hmm, I think the government scientists who've been front and centre on UK news have been peddling a politically perverted message. So perhaps we can trust their peer-reviewed output, but the "masks are useless" and "closing schools won't reduce infection transmission" messages came from scientists. Scientists are still human, and still will push their ideals and beliefs ahead of scientific non-falsehood.
Also, epidemiology is an interesting one. As in all public health there are balances, but moreso here. Often anti-antivax people will claim "vaccines are entirely safe" which is unscientific. Their goals are noble, but they discredit themselves because data on negative outcomes is pretty easy to come by. The temptation is the same, public health is served by convincing people to take certain actions (eg not buy masks, because they're needed by healthcare workers). Sometimes these actions are contrary to individual needs. Governments will need to tell people to do things that are against those people's best interests ("don't seek medical care") because those actions preserve the population. Epidemiology is about preserving populations, not about keeping individuals healthy. That means there's always a tension, and I don't think _one_ can trust epidemiologists, but _we_ can trust them in general.
Would you like to save lives? Would you lie, knowing 100,000s would die ... because there was a high probability that it could save millions, but also a possibility that the deaths wouldn't help, or wouldn't be necessary?
The epidemiologists seem to have earned our trust so far. The countries that have made competent attempts to follow their advice (S. Korea, NZ, Australia) are doing way better than those that haven't (the UK, US, Sweden).
(Unless you were thinking that they should be able to "protect us" without cooperation from their governments, but I'm having trouble seeing how that works)