It's rational, you just haven't seen the data causing people to ask these questions. Perhaps because aforementioned newspaper outlets aren't showing you.

Here is some.

Graphical comparison of UK (hard lock down) with Sweden (not much lockdown e.g. restaurants and shops still open)

http://www.theblogmire.com/a-comparison-of-lockdown-uk-with-...

There's basically no difference.

Switzerland's proportion of positive tests as a fraction of all tests (i.e. is it spreading) shows no epidemic and no effect from lockdown, again, presented visually here in the tweet that's a reply to the first:

https://twitter.com/FScholkmann/status/1249703752904425478

In Switzerland the apparent reproduction number started to fall before lockdown began (see the shaded graph):

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-lockdown-impact-covid...

https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ansteckungsraten-flachten-berei...

(you can delete the paywall to see the headline and summary)

There are other reasons to be skeptical. Epidemics naturally come and go very quickly. The "lockdown" concept comes from epidemiologists. These people have a history of proposing extreme measures that turn out to have had no effect when compared to control groups, or when people simply realise that the epidemic entered decline before the recommended measures were implemented. If the lockdown ends up having no effect it'd be counter-intuitive but entirely predictable from how things worked out in the past. For instance, look at the history of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK.