I generally agree with BV on this one - you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. None of us are epidemiologists and I understand that world is like the world of aviation - ask 3 people and you'll get 4 opinions, including one that matches your particular world model.
I would absolutely say though that the vast majority of people calling for an end to lockdown are, as Vin rightly points out, at relatively low risk of themselves dying of COVID. That is kinda the point of government. To make tough calls that aren't in the interests of every individual. That's also arguably the stated reason why the government delayed entering lockdown - their argument at the time was they knew it was only sustainable for so long (for a myriad of factors). How you exit it is tricky and nuanced, but make no mistake - easing the lockdown will directly cause people to die. Not easing the lockdown will, as Vin points out, directly cause people to die. Neither of them are good outcomes, so which one is the best to do pretty much sits with which demographic you happen to be in.
To argue that lockdown wasn't necessary because COVID is only as bad as flu - see BV's point. It's a total fallacy. Mortality rate is only one part of the puzzle, infection rate is the other. If as many people have died with the lockdown as flu, then it's definitely a lot worse. Google the R0 for UK before and after lockdown, admittedly with limited testing, then make a simple spreadsheet leaving the R0 up around 2.5-3 and see how many people end up in ICU/dead. It isn't pretty.
It's an emotive subject. This thing is screwing people over left, right and centre, and I'm frankly glad I'm a) not in a risk category b) in a country that is supporting it's furloughed workers albeit in the short term and far from perfectly and c) has universal healthcare.