Who is denying biology? I know how viruses spread, but what you fail to connect is no matter how much you try to contain a virus, the humans that carry have to move outside of your lines in the sand. It is isn't a case of working out the exceptions, they will be numerous and way too many to control. That is a reality of modern society. You could of course shut pretty much everything down, but then how do you pay for all of this?
Basically it is the same argument about lockdowns that have been going on about lockdowns since the pandemic started. You are really bringing nothing new to the table.
And look where they are, staring the inevitable in the face. The lockdowns aren't doing what they hoped for, they messed up their vaccine programme, and they are going to have to prepare to come out from behind the sofa before they completely wreak their economy.
Well you got that one right. But frankly our opposing views do not matter one jot, what matters is the damage lockdowns have done & could they ever be used again.
I agree, their policy is failing. But it's not failing because of lockdowns, but because of a failure to deliver the vaccination programme fast enough. The lockdowns have worked in Australia and New Zealand to a much greater extent than you are willing to allow,
because the restrictions (however framed) have limited the amount of social interaction to sufficiently low levels that the virus can't transmit.
The change, which does seriously affect how they emerge, is that Delta is much more transmissible and Australia especially had fallen into a halfway house position over it's administration of lockdowns.
Though if the risk from going to a supermarket (and I'm sure, no one - but no one - would argue that there is any justification whatsoever in closing supermarkets) is a certain value, then risk of getting/spreading Covid from a country hike in an isolated area is probably a thousandth of that at best - and probably much lower. Even if there are people around, as long as you keep your distance and pass them quickly, are you really going to get or spread Covid? The risk must be miniscule. And if you carry a mask and wear it when there are people around - even less.
So the extra risk from such outdoor activities on top of the essential activities which cannot be closed down is scarcely worth placing extra restrictions on them. If opening up the outdoors results in 1001 cases rather than 1000 cases, let's say, is closing it down really worth doing, given the adverse effects it will cause on people's mental and physical health?
It should be about balance. Anything which has a negligible impact on the number of cases, is arguably not worth restricting. Many politicians, and Australia seems to be particularly bad about this, seem to deny that 'hard' lockdowns (stay at home rules, rather than just closing high-risk businesses) have adverse effects on people arguably worse than allowing such very-low-risk activities.
Except that the experience here was that those extra permissions were stretched, and did undermine the effect of the measures. People don't just drive x hours for a long walk, walk, then get back in their car - they refuel, they purchase food and drink, etc.
As for the adverse effects on those subject to lockdowns, that's a fair challenge. But that has to be weighed in the balance against the costs of allowing the disease to spread. Given the UK's record over the last 18 months, I can forgive Australian politicians from wishing to avoid the same outcomes.