Mmmmm...at the beginning none of us knew what we were facing...we still don't know enough about Covid ...and it's hard to quantify what impact individuals following the rules collectively had on stopping the NHS from collapsing, which was always the focus. It's easy to look back and sneer in hindsight but many people I know, followed the rules quite strictly 95% of the time and then allowed themselves an occasional rule breach , usually for good family reasons. Imagine if the rules had been less strict and that figure of 5% went up to 20% of people not following the rules ...and the different outcome that might have had. In other words, the authorities always set rules knowing that they will not be followed by a certain percentage of people and by definition therefore the rules by necessity have to be more authoritarian than is going required in reality, but where that line is set is a very hard one to judge! So although in hindsight it looks like overkill now, my cousin who is a doctor in the NHS doesn't think so, as he observed how close his hospital came to collapse.
As for people being criticized for walking in the country in case they need an ambulance; it's all a question of degrees surely?
In its most pure form, yes, that rule betrays a total lack of common sense.
But a National Park near my family was over-run during lockdown by inexperienced and ill-equipped people walking up hills and having to be rescued and treated for falls and exposure, so some caution did need to be exercised.
And my friends and I did opt to turn our horses out and not go hacking or compete during lockdowns, in case we diverted an ambulance away from where it was needed for a Covid patient.
So yes I agree that "criticising people for walking in the country" in its purest form was ridiculous but, if you look at it in more detail, it wasn't entirely without reason.