...Because [whomever] has an aura of respectability and education about him doesn't make him correct....
Exactly. That's exactly right. So whenever we see a similar pattern, anywhere, with anybody, that same truth holds. It doesn't matter if it's Joltin Joe Biden or Obama or Newsome or Fauci or any PhD or MD or DD or JD or what have you.
Fact is that every discipline, every university department, every domain, has its experts, authorities, and it's just so simple to know when that pedigree contributes to the claim or when it's irrelevant. It has to do with whether or not all the doctors agree, is what it boils down to. If they all uniformly agree, then you can bank on it, but if the doctors themselves dispute and contradict each other, then the question remains open.
This matter is an open question. Not all lawyers or political philosophers or even self-identifying liberal thinkers agree on the restrictions that governments are imposing upon civilians. It would be helpful I suppose if at least all the medical doctors agreed on what to do, if mankind were imagined as a zoo, and the zookeepers just want to make sure all their property (animals /specimens) survive an outbreak, but we don't even have that.
But even if we did that wouldn't justify infringing or abridging our basic and universal rights. That's the idea from the source's source. That's the idea of all liberals who take rights seriously. If an authenticated doctor of jurisprudence who's ascended in the profession to anything like a supreme court is also a liberal who takes human rights seriously argues that human rights ought to be taken seriously, that doesn't prove that he or she is right.
The trouble with searching for certainty through an appeal to authority is that sometimes people just resist. For example slavery, in Antebellum America. All the experts in the world might have said that slavery was fundamentally illiberal, they all might have said that Blacks were just as much persons as whites, but DEMOCRACY said that the slave states were going to be slave states. They were never going to voluntarily outlaw slavery. That had to be imposed upon them, and not through the mere enacting of a law, it had to be killed out of them. They were killed until they surrendered unconditionally.
Is anybody talking about imposing upon people that they not lockdown? No, talk is of imposing upon them lockdown. Hopefully violence is not needed. I would suggest at this point that what's done is mask mandates that are not enforced, so that government makes its most grave plea for compliance, but doesn't revoke basic human universal rights like breathing and walking around and leaving your home whenever you feel like it.