This is a good example of "Outside" that's not really "Outside". Not just some theoretical example we're making up to describe it.Yes. We went from this same mandate last spring to masks outdoors in public ALWAYS because compliance was absolutely non-existent outdoors (a skate park in our town had to be closed multiple times because the teenagers weren't masking and were hanging out shoulder-to-shoulder and cases were traced back to that group, as an example). We just changed back to 6' distance not very long ago (within a month). Our governor has thankfully been very nuanced in his approach to the virus and has set a timeline for easing restrictions and mandates, provided that we continue to do well with getting cases down and vaccination rates.
They were "Outside", a scenario we all agree is super low to non existent risk.
However, they were in a "crowd". No idea how big the crowd was, but clearly there were at least a few people close enough that one could spill a drink on another.
They did contact tracing (yeah for infection tracing processes), and determined this is where the transmission happened.
They adjusted the rules based on the event occurring. Boo for everyone else who was "Outside" for real having the same restriction because the nuance wasn't being respected and someone didn't adjust as they crossed the transition dooming it for everyone.
Which reinforces that understanding the nuances and details helps with individual decisions but isn't good for broad based guidelines and why the guidelines are looking at the worst scenario. I'm sure someone was thinking "you said outside was safe and my kid got infected outside, why did you lie to me ". Never mind whatever was actually being done.