I kind of agree there. However, I don't think people look for loopholes the more complex rules get. I think they just want to know whether the thing they want to do is "allowed" or not. Some people I assume view the "risk" as being greater if something has been actually banned rather than advised against, but things aren't banned totally, as exceptions exist. In which case they aren't looking for loopholes, but checking whether the exceptions imply that the benefit of their trip (or whatever) outweigh the risk.
Others are happy making their own decision that the risk they are taking is minimised/ acceptable or the journey is unavoidable. So they aren't looking for a loophole to go and visit a vulnerable relative, because there was no chance of them not doing it, basically, even if no exception existed.
But yes, the myriad of regulations and exceptions does lead to weird situations, like people needing to go to 2 shops in their own council area rather than one shop, closer, but in the neighbouring council area. I'm not sure if Devi would consider doing the latter a "loophole" or simply breaking the rules. But to me it seems the more logical solution and within the spirit of what she is saying.
I'm also getting more worried that people are now incapable of following the "common sense" she advocates, because we have been, as you say, micromanaged into what is "allowed" and "not allowed" and the people happy to make their own assessment run the risk of inadvertently breaking the law. (Albeit they are unlikely to actually be sanctioned for doing so).