So people demanding we reopen everything are IMO being needlessly premature and advocating putting people at risk. Until we can say there's been no community spread, then we cannot relax.
Everything that you said is fair enough to a point.
However, I don't see any evidence of people '
demanding that we reopen
everything' (my italicising). With respect, that is hyperbole.
At the outset of restrictions, our leaders were saying that we must follow the medical advice for two reasons: to prevent spread and to allow the medical system to build preparedness for instances of outbreaks.
By and large, the community was very compliant in accepting that.
Now, the message has in substantial part become inconsistent with that original message. The medical advice is now that closure of state borders is no longer necessary. Yet the leaders are rejecting that.
We saw something similar with school closures.
The original national consistency has become slightly anarchic.
I think people can be excused for arcing up about both the inconsistency and the brutal economic consequences and saying, rhetorically, 'You can't have it both ways.' There is a risk that the leaders, rather than taking people with them, will cause fractures in the community.
We see elements of that in people who have lost the job or business, referring to 'Public servants who don't have to worry about the source of their income.' making/advising on these decisions.
I think we run some risks of civil disobedience if people become frustrated and impatient at what they may now see as excessively draconian measures that may seem not to have a consistent rational basis. That could manifest itself be on the streets; in a sense it's arguably already manifested in legal challenges to state border closures.
It is pretty much impossible to draw a line at zero or infinity - yet that seems to be becoming the perceived message - intended or not.