It is impossible for anyone to predict with certainty how the epidemic will develop. It was and is a mistake to base one's attitude on such predictions.

The rational grounds for opposition to lockdowns and compulsory masking are:
(a) they are futile. We are social animals and efforts to stop us from following our nature are pointless (even ardent lockdowners constantly break the rules for this reason); (b) they are cruel and destructive, for the same reason.

However the epidemic evolves, it makes no sense to try to beat it by smashing society.

Most of the compulsory public health measures should become voluntary recommendations. Then people will follow them as far as they are able, without being penalized for not following them when necessary. The especially vulnerable should be offered appropriate support, if they want it. The relevant health and social services should be strengthened as necessary.

The "alternative strategy" to banging one's head against a brick wall is not to do it.

As Colinou says above, lockdowns (and I would add all the other regulations, although probably Colinou intended them too) are futile. Human beings like to get together, and absolutely hate having to keep a distance as if others were dangerous. But there is another reason why they are futile, which I have not seen discussed very much (possibly my not paying enough attention). It is this:

Social measures, however severe, cannot possibly eliminate the virus, and if that is what Matt Hancock means by "suppress the virus" it ain't going to happen. The virus is already too widely distributed for that. Social measures can only push bumps in infection rates from one month to another, and when they are relaxed infection spread which would have taken place earlier will happen then (until you run out of people to infect).

So when Vallance and the others talk about buying time, we should demand to know for what? A vaccine, maybe, but that might be a long time off (and the uncertainty about whether we will get a vaccine must be just as great as the uncertainty about long-term immunity from having had the infection). I suggest that unless you are flattening a bump to prevent healthcare being overwhelmed, it simply is not worth shifting bumps around, given the known costs in crushing the spirit of society, in people not getting other medical treatment, and in economic damage with its associated social effects.