Depends if they are following rules because they are concerned about the virus in a way that also motivates critical thinking, or if they misunderstand the purpose of the rules and think the rules are all that is needed to protect them.
I think in many cases it's not a lack of critical thinking. It's recognising that just because one person or household having a little picnic seems low risk, once we start to allow all sorts of exceptions it is a slippery slope to a place where many infractions are significant in risk.
You raise important points.
The tenants where I live are elderly or otherwise vulnerable and many completely misunderstand the rules and the reasons for them.
Their theories and (mis)understandings range from a belief that it is all a big hysterical exaggeration, the 2 metre rule is ony if people are coughing and of they are not then it is fine to be close to them, children do not present a risk because reasons, I mean children dontcha just love em? etc etc There is also a belief amongst some that familes and family bonds can make people immune from risk especially at easter.
Most people I know who are trying hard to comply with the rules are very aware indeed that the govt guidance doesn't necessarily reflect risk, and they were locking down before being advised to. So I am sure they will be the same if rules are lessened.
This is my understanding. I understand that the 2 metre rule will not keep me safe. I keep as much distance between me and others as a possibly can. Some people are extremely grateful and say thank you when I go out of my way to put as big a distance as I can between me and them. Others become personally offended, as if I am accusing them of "having it"
While exercising recently a tennis ball rolled past me followed, after a while by a dog and the 2 men walking it. At a safe distance I said "once upon a time I would have kicked the ball to you, how times change"
At which point they became very offended and went into one about how I could never "get it" from a tennis ball.
I explained that I could "pass it" to them, not just them to me and that we all had to consider ourselves as infected so as to protect others. They were embarrassed and gave me a half-hearted apology.
But you may be right that there is a section of rule followers, and even some very slight rule benders, who think differently. I have come across some people on here who say things like, oh if you could catch it off shopping items we would have been told to clean them, or who think that because we are allowed to exercise 2m from others that must be completely safe. I agree they don't grasp the compromises and wider societal perspective in the govt approach. They actually believe the govt is advising based on total individual risk.
absolutely
I think there has been a failure of education re this. We should be educating people so as to properly assess risks and to act in such a way as to reduce risks as much as possible rather than to follow rules blindly, even of to do so is risky