Worse than the state

In the last wave of Corona, the state's guidelines were relatively lighter than previous waves, and the reason they presented was that although the wave is more contagious, it is less deadly, and therefore there is more room for easing.
My friend claimed, and it seems pretty clear to me, that the reason for the easing was more political than professional and that it really should be much stricter than the lenient guidelines we gave (he himself really rarely leaves the house and even when he did, he made sure to wear a mask even outdoors).
When I came to find out for myself what was the right thing to do, I encountered three problems:
A. I don't really have data to check whether the reality is worse than the previous waves and how bad the situation is, nor do I have the tools and time to start searching the Internet for graphs and reliable information.
B. Even if I knew what the reality was, I don't know how much it is right to be strict and limit myself and where to draw the line from which I say that even though it harms the environment, it's not enough to limit me.
C. Even if I answered the previous two questions, I do not have the medical knowledge to decide what restrictions to place on myself that would improve the situation. For example, even if the situation is severe, it may not be necessary to go into quarantine, but it is enough to walk around with masks.
In general, all of these decisions are usually made by experts in the field and I don't have the ability to do their work alone without training.
That's why I decided that even though I thought the guidelines were questionable due to doubt, I would stick with the state's guidelines.
I wanted to ask whether the problems I raised are correct problems and whether there are other problems that should have been raised in making the decision, and do you think what I decided in the end was correct?
PS I think this could be a general problem in decisions in other areas as well, and not necessarily in the case of the coronavirus.