It's probably worth establishing that elected officials, not experts, pretty much have to have the final say on major decisions about public policy -- it's the politicians who were elected and who can be held accountable by the public for those decisions.

But...

... any space between what experts in, say, health policy recommend and what the politicians decide to do, obviously creates an opening to second-guess those decisions.

Expert advice isn't inherently correct -- and saying they listened to experts isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for politicians. But you can understand why the public might want its leaders to be listening to people who are experts in things like epidemiology during a pandemic.

One complication: Where that advice is confidential -- and advice to cabinet might have to be confidential -- external experts might be a decent, if imperfect, proxy for what might be happening internally.

Lastly, there is a limit to how much political leaders can use expert advice as a shield. Think back to the long-form census debacle of several years ago. The minister claimed the government was acting on the advice of the chief statistician....

... that didn't line up with what the chief statistician had actually advised. The result was that the chief statistician felt compelled to resign.