The WHO have actually discouraged short lockdowns as they only slow it down slightly for it to soar in numbers once reopened.
That's not true, though was misrepresented by loads of people (esp by Trump and Twitter eejits with an agenda; less so in newspapers, etc.).
The WHO spokesperson said that lockdowns shouldn't be the primary means of controlling covid because they make poor people poorer, but he never said they don't work. They do work: and infection rates don't shoot up straight afterwards either. The WHO point was that lockdowns have negative repercussions (well, yeah) and shouldn't be used unless really needed, like when the primary means of control (social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing, track and trace, etc.) aren't working.
So are we at that point here? Yes, probably. As a pp said, a sizeable minority have been taking the piss in ignoring the primary means of controlling covid... so I blame them entirely for the need for lockdown now. At least this way, people will be free to travel for Xmas, which is the main reason for the timing. Any more delay and the lockdown would have to eat in the xmas period.
It could be worse. Have you seen what's going on in Manchester? Numbers are about 4 x times what they are here and no lockdown because the UK gov won't stump up for pandemic payments for people whose jobs disappear in lockdown.
Boris and his chums make Mehole and crew look competent...