I agree with that! But the proper detection of expertise is underanalyzed imo. For example in the presentation it was made to seem obvious that there were experts on coronavirus that weren't being listened to due to bias, politics etc - which is certaintly true - but no mention that this event has called on the expertise of virologists, epidemiologists, public health experts, economists, politicians and more, who may not be aligned on their recommendations. Furthermore, experts in one domain are often tempted to stretch their authority into an adjacent domain, even though medicine and epidemiology are not the same, for example (Nichols actually defended physicians giving nutritional advice in the presentation, and I've seen more than enough of that done poorly to know a nutrition science PhD would be preferred).
I don't think radical skepticism is the proper response, but I think the barriers to finding the truth for the average Joe can certainly lead to it, and that needs to be acknowledged for public communication to improve.