I understand the instinct to try and apply a 'stay locked down until it's safe to go back to normal' approach, it's any normal person's natural instinct, no-one wants to see someone who would otherwise have been alive a month from now dead due to coronavirus. However, there is a principle called the 'principle of utility' and that is an acceptance that in all societies / ways of life, there have to be trade-offs. The most obvious example is driving - if a blanket 30 mph speed limit was enforced everywhere, and cars were all fitted with speed limiters, the number of fatalities on our roads would be drastically reduced, but we don't do that because we consider that too draconian, and instead accept that by not doing that more people are going to die. Smoking and drinking are another two obvious examples - how many do they both kill prematurely every year globally - I don't know the exact figures but I wouldn't be surprised if more people die annually due to those two than will die due to coronavirus, but we accept the 'collateral damage' that allowing people to indulge these two habits causes.
There are certainly things that need to be done - much wider testing, much more effective deployment of protective equipment across all sectors that would need them, so not just NHS but all care facilities, and other people working in social situations e.g. public transport, shops etc. But ultimately for anything else we're going to have to apply that 'principle of utility' if we want those things to continue in a form close to what they are now - coronavirus is likely to be a threat for at least 18 months, and potentially permanently, so if you want to continue to do anything that involves close proximity to others for entertainment, then I think we're just going to have to 'accept the risks and get on with it' at some point in the next few months, because the risk isn't going to go away anytime soon.