I think the government is trying its very hardest to help those who need it, to be fair to them. They're paying 80% of wages in order to prevent permanent job loss under the furlough scheme, and as I'd imagine people are spending less money at the moment on average (lower petrol costs due to home working, not spending income on things like eating out etc.), then that's a pretty good situation compared to permanent job loss. They've also suspended business rates until the end of the year, and started a loan scheme to help those businesses who need money to tide them over, as well as announcing measures to help the self-employed. As far as damage mitigation for the economy goes, I think the government is doing as much as it can.
It might also be worth me saying that I read an article saying that the way of paying for all this might not be entirely through the taxpayer. Apparently, this could be an opportunity for the government to use an anonymous £500m donation from 1928 known as the National Fund, and there was also something to do with cashing in loans or something like that. Michael Gove has hinted at a fresh round of austerity when this is over, however, so I'm not sure if I really know what to expect, which is very worrying to me.
As
@pluk said, though, I'm not really sure there's a right or wrong way to deal with this type of situation. Regardless of what's done, there will ultimately be consequences. The herd immunity route results in more deaths, but a more stable economy. Lockdown results in less deaths, but a less stable economy. I think the world's governments are stuck between a rock and a hard place here.