The conversation with the negative side of the argument...

The conversation with the negative side of the argument regarding isolation protocols generally becomes recursive and dismisses expert opinion and data based decision making.

I've found its anchored in conspiracy theory which for the most part takes advantage of those lacking the education (no disrespect) to scaffold their thinking process using principles and rationale attached to data observation.

Obviously there are some traps to be careful of falling into when making data based decisions, such as not dismissing common sense judgement. But if the data based evidence is screaming the virus is highly virulent, then high levels of tranmission will naturally follow along with expotential risks.

For instance, the outbreak in Melbourne which saw 600 medical staff furlonged because of exposure to a positive patient, also intially resulted in 60 of those staff testing positive. If they'd stayed put, then overlaying known tranmission rates would have meant those in their care (COVID19 or not), or co-workers would have been exposed unnecessarily. The outbreak from this cluster alone would have caused mayhem in the hospital system (and community) had they not locked it down quickly.

Again, there's a destinct inability for some to think past their first impulse, whatever that is attached too.