adhering to the rules (which are different in different areas) is really all we can expect, but I think we can expect that. In addition to the increase in risk violators cause, they are being free riders. As the NY Times ethicist put it, analyzing a writer's roommate who was not following SiP:
"the evidence suggests that it [social distancing] is working, even though some people — out of ignorance, foolishness or wickedness — are breaching it. When a policy is working for the general good, we owe it to one another and to the community to do our fair share. A great many people are depriving themselves of face-to-face contacts they would enjoy. It’s unfair to them when others fail to do their part. The policy works because small sacrifices by many people can produce a very large and lifesaving benefit. By defecting from the policy, your roommate is betraying not just you but also everybody who is sticking to it. She is also displaying a lack of respect for everyone who is benefiting from the lowered risk of infection.
article
of course 2 non-roommates playing tennis and maintaining social distance poses essentially no risk, when looked at in isolation. good example. But allowing tennis as a policy for the general public won't always work, as Stanford's experience with the Dish Walk illustrates. I think it's analogous to why drivers need to obey red lights when there's no one around. Essentially no risk in isolation, but a policy of allowing people to proceed against a red light when they judge it's safe to do so won't work because the general public will not uniformly use good judgment.
"the evidence suggests that it [social distancing] is working, even though some people — out of ignorance, foolishness or wickedness — are breaching it. When a policy is working for the general good, we owe it to one another and to the community to do our fair share. A great many people are depriving themselves of face-to-face contacts they would enjoy. It’s unfair to them when others fail to do their part. The policy works because small sacrifices by many people can produce a very large and lifesaving benefit. By defecting from the policy, your roommate is betraying not just you but also everybody who is sticking to it. She is also displaying a lack of respect for everyone who is benefiting from the lowered risk of infection.
article
of course 2 non-roommates playing tennis and maintaining social distance poses essentially no risk, when looked at in isolation. good example. But allowing tennis as a policy for the general public won't always work, as Stanford's experience with the Dish Walk illustrates. I think it's analogous to why drivers need to obey red lights when there's no one around. Essentially no risk in isolation, but a policy of allowing people to proceed against a red light when they judge it's safe to do so won't work because the general public will not uniformly use good judgment.