Interestingly despite being very vocal and anti- lockdown from the very beginning of the pandemic - I didn't wear a mask, I refused not to see family, etc
I would obey lockdown more fully this time.
The first time was about the statistical risk to relatively healthy populations (I was in the vulnerable group) balanced against the negative consequences, Job losses for the poorest, mental health, lack of decent educational provision for the poorest and most vulnerable children, unequal safety measures (supermarket and retail staff, cleaners, security staff, minimum waged people, often greater proportion of ethnic people) forced to work without furlough and exposed more severely, loss of mortgages, small businesses going under the effect on small communities, first time uni grads being isolated, bounce back inflation, higher fuel costs, etc etc etc. The risk from covid at population level when strated with age just didn't seem to justify the entire country being shut down. It required a more finessed approach and that could have been done had it not been such a political hot potato.
But this disease may be different. If it is broad in in terms of populations affected and easily transferrable then a lockdown makes more sense, and I would comply.
I haven't really looked into it. But it is dangerous to assume that because lockdown may have bern wrong, too long, too broadly applied last time, it is the wrong thing to do this time.