Which would be relevant in a discussion about technique.
Murder and knife crime discussions would not be.
A knife can be used for those things, but when discussing knives in cooking it makes no sense to talk about those topics.
Likewise in a discussion wherein the example of the farmer trying to protect the herd from a predator by closing the fence after the predator is already inside the farm - it is not the selection of predator animal used in the example which is the topic at hand. The example is used to illustrate the futility of the act. It does not mean that the government is a farmer. It does not mean the people are farm animals. Farm animals do not elect their farmers. Farmers do not have 3 branches and an independent judiciary or a legislature. Getting into these aspects of the comparison make no sense whatsoever. Likewise getting into the specifics of the coyote - patient zero comparison also serves no purpose. Coyotes have 4 legs and a snout. Humans don't have snouts, we have noses. Discussing all of this is not productive at all.
Also what xenophobic thing have I discussed? I am pointing out the fact that the comment you were replying to used an analogy - which is a linguistic device intended to draw a comparison. There are many phrases and figures of speech like "fox in the hen house" and "bull in a China shop" or "frog in the well". These phrases are never intended to compare the person to an actual fox or bull or frog.
You're not an expert and you're spouting xenophobic bullshit. Take the L.