They want to "feel" safe. But, on some level, their feeble feelings aren't on her. "Be" safe, and "feel" safe, can be two very different things.
I think that her continued position - and a reasonable one - is that she should not have to cater to IRRATIONAL fears. If people are scared that she's the boogeyman possibly spreading disease, when it's medically proven to be untrue, that's their problem not hers. And she believes it should be the responsibility of the govt officials to educate, rather than pander to the irrational.
So what needs to be ascertained is whether, as she adamantly continues to preach, she truly carries no risk to others, and if so can that continue to be the case without her being locked up. We've been told that there's no risk to others until she shows symptoms, and she's staunchly advocating that as absolute fact...and, if that's accurate, then she indeed is locked up because of others' stupidity feeding fear, and that should be on them not on her.
On the other hand ...is she truly right, or just someone who's over-confident in the inability to transmit the disease to others if she's out-and-about before showing symptoms? There is truth that exists, and the difference matters.
Our civil leaders gotta separate fact from fear, and then have the cojones to follow the facts, educate, and refuse to pander to stupidity (wherever it lies).