JAC Here’s a question for you - People would argue you don’t need antivirus when running Ubuntu, is that correct?
Interesting question. In fact, there's no right or wrong answer here when it comes to Linux. In most cases, viruses (the dying breed they are - today's most prevalent attacks are in the form of malware and ransomware) are designed to run under a Windows environment. The reason for this is that the Windows ecosystem is by far the largest and most popular with (at one point) over 90% of households and businesses alike running it. In most cases, the figure is still high but Windows usage has dropped somewhat thanks to Mac, Chromebook, Linux (in various flavours). Owing to the uptake of Linux from individuals and businesses, there does in fact exist a small handful of malware tools designed to infect a Linux kernel (the heart of the operating system).
These tools are mostly known as "root kits". The Linux subsystem has for years adopted the concept of "sudo" (a fake elevator to run with root permissions under a standard account), which made it much harder for root kits to run unless they were granted explicit permission from the user. This made remote attacks (drive by) harder to execute, as the subsystem would simply reject the request.
However, with the onset of malware that can use the bios or UEFI (the central core of the system - without this, the system won't start at all as this contains a simple set of instructions that tell the computer where to find key resources such as memory, disks, etc, and which order they should be started in) to inject the operating system at startup with malicious code that runs silently in the background invisible to the user, the prospect for serious damage is exacerbated to the point where the operating system itself becomes irrelevant.
It's possible to run Linux with absolutely no protection whatsoever. What makes malicious attacks more difficult on a Linux system is the monolithic kernel (in the sense that the kernel itself is compiled for the hardware in use rather then the general one provided by Windows) so the available attack vectors are unique per instance because of this.
This means that there is no "one size fits all" attack vectors for Linux, so it is inherently more secure than Windows. However, the bottom line here is that there is no defence weaker than users themselves. You can have every bit of protection there is, but if a user decides they want to click that link for a free Apple iPhone, all of that security is effectively bypassed.
Long explanation, but hopefully provides detail.