At the risk of repeating something that I've said on many, many threads:
In Wuhan, they did not just do lockdown.
They started off with the lockdown but quickly added centralized quarantine measures.
People who were infected were traced and compelled to go to a centralized quarantine facility, to protect their families.
The UK has not done this.
If you wait until there are many people infected, and then hold a lockdown WITHOUT removing those infected people from their families, then what will happen is that those infected people will infect other people in their households.
Close household contact produces the highest risk of infection, because the healthy people are breathing in huge amounts of virus for long periods of time. It also appears to greatly increase the risk of severe disease, due to people's immune system's being overwhelmed before they have worked out how to tackle the infection.
So if you hold a lockdown without bothering to organize tracing and centralized quarantine, it is going to be a really long time before you actually see any sort of significant fall in the number of deaths and hospitalizations. The virus has got to burn its way right through each affected household first. Eventually the death figures will fall because the virus will have worked its way round these households and have nowhere to go. But you have got to wait quite a long time before that happens.
Predictably, this then produces the calls for a "stricter!!!" lockdown. I think some people on here seriously believe that the deaths have been slow to fall because of someone sitting on a park bench to eat a sausage roll, or someone exercising twice a day instead of once.
Well, no----it's slow to fall because when you carry out lockdown without centralized quarantine what you are literally doing is confining healthy people into small buildings with sick people and forcing the healthy people to breathe in a thick haze of virus all day every day until they get sick too .