[Goose]

That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent.

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.

[Goose]

That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent.

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.