I think you're being a little too literal here. I mean, yes, of course you're right, but in many cases, we have enough information.

COVID is a pretty good recent example. We had an awful lot of information. Much of it was relevant to how we should proceed and what policies we should put in place. But only some of that information was widely reported. Some, that later turned out to be true, was treated as misinformation and actively subdued.

To give the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, let's say this was done because, in the name of public safety, somebody, somewhere decided that only information that emphasised the risks and encouraged compliance should be released. But this backfired spectacularly in many ways, and eroded trust in health institutions in general. Meaning if something like this happens again, we'll all be worse off.

So I guess the point I'm making with that sentence is that I want to believe if information is freely available, if we don't try to manipulate the information that can and can't be talked about (which we'll inevitably get caught doing), we'll be better off for it. Whether this turns out to be true is another matter. But it's what I'd like to believe.