@Bartlet
Would I be happy with any situation where millions of my fellow citizens lives were being absolutely devastated all around me
I don't think you'll find anyone who would be happy with that situation, but right now, on balance Lockdown is likely to save more lives than it takes, so from a humane perspective it's the correct thing to do. If only we'd done it sooner far fewer people would have died and we'd likely be out of the worst of it by now.
Where I change on this, is that there invariably comes a time whereby the lockdown does more harm than good. It's still in dispute, but there's some suggestion that the lockdown will not, in the long term, save any lives at all as compared to a situation whereby we just continued on as normal, but I think what it may have done is prevent all those cases and deaths occurring in a much shorter time-frame, spared the NHS the most catastrophic outcome, and saved our government from having to answer as to why X number of people have died in such short order.
Say 250,000 deaths over a six month period where we're in and out of lockdown. I think the government would be much more able to bluster their way through that than a scenario whereby we have no lockdown, 250,000 deaths over a period of three months, and a completely collapsed and dysfunctional NHS.
You don't even have to be totally convinced of the merits and efficacy of lockdown to be broadly in favour of it, when it's obvious that the consequences of not doing it would be completely catastrophic. Even Boris and his travelling band of simpletons finally accepted this, albeit, far too late.