Note that the defender of the lockdowns bears the burden of proof demonstrating otherwise. Simple post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning will not do. Do some social science, please. Also, when you try to justify them, please be sure to do a full cost-benefit analysis, taking into account lost schooling, the massive drop in GDP, lost jobs, increased suicides, reduced treatment for other diseases, increased child hunger, the re-emergence of tuberculosis, and so on. No using overly paranoid, unscientific models which assume no natural immunity and a 75% infection rate. Please be sure to account for what appears to be the re-emergence of the virus in the early lockdown countries; it's very possible all they did was delay the mass spreading of the disease.
I'd like also to remind you that your original argument for lockdowns was not to make the disease go away, but instead to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. No gaslighting us, please, by changing your justifications after the fact.