[teejers1]

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. But allowing tennis as a policy for the general public often won't 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 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.

Dish walks and tennis are not analogous.  At all.
First of all, the Dish was the only good cardio walk place for most of the greater Palo Alto area; thus, high attraction.  Second, there is no "built-in separation" in a Dish walk or run as there is in playing tennis.  I could go on, but I suspect everyone gets the point.

[teejers1]

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. But allowing tennis as a policy for the general public often won't 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 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.

Dish walks and tennis are not analogous.  At all.
First of all, the Dish was the only good cardio walk place for most of the greater Palo Alto area; thus, high attraction.  Second, there is no "built-in separation" in a Dish walk or run as there is in playing tennis.  I could go on, but I suspect everyone gets the point.