One of the most important qualities in population buy-in to any kind of security is empowerment. That expertise is important, but distillable to protect from 99% of infections.
And just like computers, good biological security has operational benefits that don't get enough focus. https://twitter.com/ossolalex/status/1318561127677255681

One of the disappointing results of lack of leadership on COVID has been fracturing of risk assessment to extremes. We don't need to be in locked cocoons with wax seal, but we also need to make fundamental adjustments to behavior so that's not needed. These aren't in conflict.

We see this in naive attempts at computer security by new practitioners, where users are admonished to never perform their daily tasks, instead of doing them carefully+safely. But those safety adjustments are more nuanced and complex, and without you're just setup for failure.

I'm not trying to speak as any kind of expert in epidemiology or biology - just because I work in computer infections, that's plainly stupid, but the parallels that do exist are pretty eerie and may be assistive in shaping human behavior.

So many people see leadership as being subjugated through reduced freedom.

But in an epidemic, leadership means increasing shared freedom through minimum agreed behaviors to reduce spread.

That there's any conflict at all here is a product of the stupidest possible partisanship

In enterprise, there are plans to reduce infection spread by literally switching the power off to 100 million dollar datacenters. Yanking it.

It doesn't have to be that way. Those plans only exist for uncontainable virulent behavior that overwhelms normal hygiene behaviors.

Viruses are not extralegal, even in computers. In fact, they exploit the nuances of Legal. They may use a novel flaw in the shields of defense, but their pathway is always the killswitch.

It is physically immutable fact: Using a path cannot be bypassed without leveraging magic.