I'm with you on the perception and sake of society, Those are also more of a reason why I actually try to follow the limited hours bracket for training, mask while riding (as much as possible) rules etc But not the damaging, I argue that inconsistent rules that are not well thought out, that is decided in urgency and then not reconsidered once calmness for though become available, are in fact damaging These rules must be consistent across countries right? Otherwise the logic and science are inconsistent. Who is more right or more incorrect?These rules are an easy option / false security for people that prefer to shift personable responsibility to black and white rules, with no effort to consider the risk in a certain location/environment where a human vs what the rule try to achieve/prevent.It detracts focus from things that someone should take serious and ask the government to make part of the rules. E.g. enforce shops to provide a hand cover to be added right before using a ATM/payment point and discard it immediately afterwards. How can that not be required, but one must keep a mask on when you cycle 10km outside of Groot brak... Explaining high risk environments vs low risk environments and the reward/urgency of taking responsibilities etc to a nation might just be more rewarding on the long run. (Obviously to rather do that by practicing that line of thought on the common cold, protected sex etc before doing that on a pandemic ) Inconsistency in rules must be queried, for the sake of mankind. To simple accept rules (or those not made) because society accepted (as required/not required) them - which they did because government (not) made that rule.... are not very bright and just group pressure. (But it sound nice)
