Some of the rules imposed are quite arbitrary and some were even laughable. Just recalling for example the substantial meal rule of 9,50 Euro - as if the Virus would distinguish here between people having a meal and not having that meal.
People behave differently when they are just out for drinking than out for a sit down meal.
More mingling, more loud talking etc
That's what the virus 'distinguishes' between.
That was the intention behind the substantial meal angle.
Other jurisdictions made distinctions on which premises could open with the intention of keeping booze only establishments shut.
All of them in a sense arbitrary, but with the same underlying rationale.
Probably they should have just gone with the original plan of restaurants only open and all pubs shut but gastropubs objected.
Similarly the time limited option was because the more time you spend in a place, the more exposed you are.
The more drinks you have, the less aware you are of need for distancing etc
You might go on a pub crawl but not an eating crawl.
People took the proverbial but what alternative measures would have been better?
If you have a better suggestion on how the establishments could have opened with safety restrictions that were enforceable and would be effective fire ahead.
As for outdoors, probably turning a blind eye as outdoors is less risk and if the stuff is going to happen, and powers v house parties are so limited, better it happens outdoor.