I would be more sympathetic to this POV if it had not been the case that there were, at the time, all kinds of people asking the right questions about things like trade-offs. (And it's also the case in the UK that there was a pandemic plan already in place, that was actually pretty sensible, which is what BJ originally was going to do. There is no logical reason that was axed, it was basically media pressure.)
Those questions people were bringing up, at the time, were not addressed. The government opposition was not asking, nor was the media, quite the opposite, those who were asking were put at the pointy end of a campaign to discredit them and accused of being anti-science.
Some of this was very visible, but it also happened behind the scenes. One of my close relatives who is (or was) in a fairly high practice/administration/leadership role in the health service continually tried to bring some of these things up, particularly how it was going to affect things like cancer care and prenatal care and what the long-term outcomes of that would be. He was removed from his position and his whole staff moved around - ostensibly just because they wanted change but that was a lock of bollocks.
Now, I am not in the UK, but from what I have heard and read, this stuff was going on all over the place. It wasn't just a panic response, I don't think. I don't want to suggest it was a conspiracy, but honestly I can see why some people think so.