Who should the public listen to regarding Covid-19 regulations? The provincial governor? The prime minister? The Public Health Ministry?
Confusion has reigned over the past few days after bungled announcements concerning measures to curb the outbreak.
It is understood that the government decided early on to decentralise disease control decision-making to provincial governors.
The idea was that an area-based response would be more proportionate and targeted, and theoretically minimise the collateral damage which proved so debilitating last time.
The procedure had worked relatively well until last Monday when the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) declared in the early afternoon that dining-in would be allowed only from 6am-7pm.
Later that evening, however, Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha overruled the order and extended table service hours to 9pm.
Then, Deputy Health Minister Sathit Pitutecha posted on his Facebook on Monday night that five provinces were under a lockdown, only to be "corrected" by the PM who said the following morning that while the areas remained under the tightest control, they were not in lockdown.
The daily reversals not only caused confusion among a public already given the jitters by alarming increases in cases but also exposed apparent weaknesses in the government's attempt to battle the pandemic.
The flip-flops only served to reinforce the impression that there is no continuity between the command centre and the city and provincial administrations.
People can't help but wonder whether these so-called authorities have any established means of co-ordinating policy announcements with the government. Decentralised does not mean disconnected.
Frequent reversals of policy threaten to erode public trust to a point where people no longer comply with edicts that might actually keep them safe.
The most worrying aspect of abrupt about-turns like this is that they seem to suggest that the government's Covid-19 strategy is not based on any solid data or scientific proof but haphazard circumstance and lobbying power.
The PM admitted himself that he reversed the decision over eatery hours after the Thai Restaurant Association complained to the government.
Of course, concerns about the knock-on effect to the restaurant sector should have been taken into account, but that should have happened before the early closures were announced publicly.
All of this only adds to concerns, which are proving ever more valid, over who is going to steer the ship out of these troubled waters. Are key decisions being made in the interests of public health, or do the interests of lobby groups and businesses carry too much weight?
It is not clear what made the BMA believe that 7pm was the best time to tell restaurants to close their doors, and there is nothing wrong with the government overseeing its divestment of power for dealing with the crisis to those in the affected communities.
What is crucial, though, is that however decisions are made, they adhere to the principles of the best scientific advice available and serve to protect the people from this deadly plague, rather than business interests, however understandable their grievances might be.
Otherwise, the government could literally be doing the public a grave disservice.