We understand nuance from the past. For example we understand that the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand didn't cause WW1, even if it directly led to it.
Why worry that future historians won't understand such nuance from the present?
"We understand nuance from the past."
Where:
We = {Specialized Historians}
I think the OP meant more that the general public's perception would be wrong. I think that's probably more likely correct.
Also, I'd be wary of thinking (as others down thread have done, you are not guilty of this) that the general person thinks the assassination caused WW1. It's clear that many people are in fact taught that it merely triggered it. It is arrogant to assume it's not a well known fact, a case of "Well the masses are stupid and think X" without evidence that the masses do in fact think that.
Indeed I am not a specialized historian, it was part of my (and all my peer groups') general education (GCSE history).
Does being able to apply pythagoras make a "specialized mathematician", or knowing "Dos cerveza por favor?" make a linguist? No, it's part of a rounded education. Not everyone achieves even a basic standard (as my attempt at Spanish likely shows), but as long as the specialists do exist, then they can write the text books for the general education and correct the record.
If big banks start going belly-up, they're going to use corona as a convenient (and dire) excuse for bail-outs, understating all the bad loans and toxic deals they've made in the past.
Do we? We don't always have all the information…