That kind of thing, especially from community leaders, leads others to think that the precautions aren't really that important -- after all, if they're going out for ice cream, I guess I can go to a restaurant/salon/gym ...
If the local recommendations allow for people to go for ice cream, or to a restaurant, salon, gym or ____, then there is nothing wrong with people engaging in those activities. An individual can choose to not engage in such activities, or can decide to not be around other people for whatever reason, but I think it is unfair to act as though people doing what the guidelines allow are somehow "bad."
I didn’t say (or think) that they were “bad.” I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of my post.
The recommendations at that time were to stay home except for essential reasons. There were not legal prohibitions, though, so I guess you could say going for ice cream was “allowed.”
But that doesn’t make it good practice or responsible. Coughing out into the air is “allowed,” too, as are plenty of things that are much more inconsiderate, selfish, dangerous, and irresponsible than making nonessential outings.
Anyway, as I thought I made clear in my post, I don’t think they did anything wrong in going for that ice cream. Sometimes you just have to make an exception. I do, too. I just thought they shouldn’t have made a point of advertising it. Which is kind of what I think about the OP’s story. It’s not anything awful or “bad,” but it’s not what I think we should be modeling and encouraging, either.