I do believe that most people are responsible enough to take the recommended precautions and encourage their friends and family to do the same and not endanger others.
The only outcome I see here is like one of prohibition.
Our country was built on trust, integrity and distribution of power, much of this is the opposite in the name of public health when the numbers show otherwise.
Closing outdoor dining but letting the movie industry dine outdoors.
Closing salons but our own speaker of the house doesn’t follow.
Prohibition, no less.
> I do believe that most people are responsible enough to take the recommended precautions and encourage their friends and family to do the same and not endanger others.
I know I'm being the "[citation needed]" guy again, but the COVID-19 case numbers in the United States just don't seem like they support this optimistic take. If it were true, we should be closer to the median -- if not below it -- then we are.
I'm not honestly sure where you're going with the Prohibition comparison; your anecdotal examples seem to be "they're telling you to follow these restrictions but they're not following them themselves," which, okay, I guess, but they're still just anecdotes. Is this "they TOLD us not to have liquor during Prohibition, but there were county commissioners who were SNEAKING INTO SPEAKEASIES!"? I mean, sure, probably, but the comparison kind of breaks down at that point. Prohibition was based on a puritanical moral panic; our current pandemic-era lockdowns are based on a very real, highly contagious lethal disease.
