It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic.
If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this.
If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate of over 17%).
I was there, remember? The pubs were rammed, Boris started saying "don't do X", numbers decreased a lot, he said "we make this legal now", the world stopped.
I'm bored of debating this now so whatever, all I get online is a stream of trolls. Good luck.
(And because of travel bans. But the anti-lockdown people mostly support those because that’s the ironic position.)
In other places we weren’t nearly so concerned about shutting down pubs; actually the bad case that often happened in the US was leaving bars open (for tax revenue) but closing schools (because parents and teachers are more neurotic than bar goers).
Still I haven’t met a whole lot of people complaining they weren’t allowed to work. Our stimulus worked quite well there.
I don’t think lockdowns are necessary or reasonable in 2022 but at least, as someone temporarily in the UK, I’ll be able to get out of my local family trying to make me see some ridiculously quaint British thing called a “panto”.
That sentiment fits individualist views and policies, where it behooves us to hear out individuals and consider them on their individual merits.
However the view and policy discussed (limitations on individuals for common good) is explicitly a collectivist view and policy. Applying a sweeping generalization to a collectivist view and policy is fit and proper by the very nature of collectivism.
Edit: corrected a typo from "individuals" to "individualist".