CHAOTIC and crowded scenes at markets and in the capital city this week were reminders of the limits to the Government's ad-hoc approach to lockdown measures.

Citizens need to exercise restraint, self-control and respect the space of others around them.

But it appears no amount of state-promulgated regulation can convince non-believers of their frailty and the frailty of those around them. Or prevent the recklessness that we so casually slip into as a society.

However, the Government needs to come to terms with the fact that its lockdown measures sometimes, though promulgated with the best of intentions, seem to have a counterproductive effect.

We were heartened by the approach of the Cabinet in imposing curfews on this week's holidays. We have previously called for graded levels of alert and restriction to match the epidemiological outlook. The State has been rightly criticised for not clamping down on previous holiday periods, and it seems it has learned its lessons.

But with each announcement of tighter measures comes the same pattern of behaviour: a rush to get groceries, to gas stations, to markets. These shopping sprees and mass panic-buying events may themselves be super-spreader events, and possibly even more dangerous than the absence of restrictions in the first place.

The Government must now accept that short-notice announcements of tighter measures simply inflame the problem. Longer periods of notice may not be ideal in the middle of alarming spikes. However, the fact that there are two holidays in this week was hardly news. The possibility that this measure may have been needed should have been forecast earlier than Saturday.

The Government should also come to terms with the need for more effective policing of these scenes.

It is simply not enough to throw our hands in the air and blame the people. Citizens are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable through proper enforcement. But the panic induced by last-minute policy announcements should be understood, as should the context of mass mental exhaustion.

In this regard, strenuous objection has been raised to the ban on outdoor exercise. Officials have linked recreational sporting activity with an uptick in cases earlier this year and have noted exercisers sometimes congregate.

But cooping up people to this extent just leads to their congregating unnecessarily when they do have or invent some reason or excuse to go out.

We are not advocating beach or river limes. But can exercise not be allowed, once policed? There is a wide range of such activity, and it plays a vital role in mental as well as physical health. It could be permitted if done by individuals or pairs, all properly masked or wearing face shields. Outdoor risks of transmission are low.

But the role of exercise in fighting cabin fever is outsized.