We need the right rules, expressed with clarity

I FOUND myself nodding when I read in Saturday’s Mercury that Leicestershire’s director of public Health, Mike Sandys, was being “driven nuts” by people wearing masks underneath their noses.

It is indeed odd that some people should do so in a way that makes the wearing ineffective.

He goes on to refer to the various reasons why some people ignore guidance and his analysis makes sense.

In daily walks, my wife and I frequently move to single file along paths while couples walking towards us continue down the middle of the path.

Occasionally they even look surprised that we have moved, as though social distancing is not a concept familiar to them.

These are not people, I am sure, who would identify as rule-breakers. Indeed they probably get outraged by stories in the press about such people.

It just seems they have not developed sufficient awareness that the guidance applies to them.

It gets to a point where we can begin to feel a mild form of social distance rage coming on.

Not all the rules make as much obvious sense as the mask and social distance ones, however, and I so admire police and public health officials like Professor Ivan Browne for their resilience and willingness to offer guidance to us about what we can and cannot do.

Government statements have often been delayed, unclear and lacking robust rationale.

Take “exercise locally” for example. Locally is such a vague term and thus will be interpreted in different ways in different localities by different people.

Prof Browne interprets it to mean nearest, keeping driving therefore to a minimum. We will do this but the logic escapes me.

A friend, for example, has a nearest park that is very popular and has therefore felt uncomfortable going there – she lives in a part of Leicestershire experiencing high increases in infection.

A while ago she found a walk, 10 miles away, with very few if any people.

Her risk analysis did not take long, but it seems she would be a rulebreaker according to local interpretation if she returned there.

What exactly is the risk difference for her in taking that drive, compared with walking in her nearest but busy park?

If people like her decide the best thing to do is never to go out, what is the risk to their physical and mental health over a prolonged period?

Yes, every bit of me agrees with Nick Rushton, the leader of Leicestershire County Council, that we must all obey the rules – and I do.

But let’s make sure they are the right rules, expressed with clarity so people can have confidence in them and officials do not have to waste precious time trying to interpret them.

Les Gallop, Syston