No - not because I think we should have a complete lockdown right now, but because apart from the handwashing advice they aren't pushing for more social distancing.
When you look at what they aren't saying, but could, about social distancing, it looks very much as though they want it to go through the non-elderly population quite fast.
They say they want to slow it down and flatten the curve - but then they hold back from all sorts of things that would make that slowing down more effective even without shutting schools etc.
They wouldn't even have to ban things right from the start - they could just say this is really serious, please cancel nonessential events, businesses get people working from home ASAP, try to keep away from people when out and about, make all meetings phone or online, clean and disinfect more in public places.
Why aren't they pushing hard for all these simpler things that would all help slow things down?
Even the talk of how it's all about protecting the vulnerable sends a subtle message that everyone else doesn't need to worry about catching the virus, which will make people try less hard to avoid catching and spreading it. Again, that suggests that the virus moving fast through the less obviously vulnerable population is all part of the plan. This is frightening because although the death and severe illness rate is lower for those younger people, it's not zero and still many times flu for lots of people.
My concern is that, for all the talk of slowing things down, they aren't trying to slow it down enough, and might have decided to 'take the hit' of an utterly overwhelmed health service for a couple of months at the peak, in favour of getting it done faster. I would have much more faith in them if they seemed to be really trying to slow it down more, even without a lockdown or schools shutting yet.
Most of us aren't qualified to pick apart the science and judge it, but that works both ways. The people who think it makes sense are making just as unqualified judgements.