What I will say unequivocally is that I prefer to debate it with folk like you, sir. You're right, I don't have the answers.I don't really disagree with much you say but, as you've acknowledged yourself, you don't have an alternative to propose and it's quite easy to argue against something if you don't have to balance it with an argument "for" something.
As I see it there are basically three options:
1. Lockdown and release cycles as the UK has done. Frankly the level of "release" we've had doesn't justify the amount of lockdown we've had in my opinion.
2. Let it run through the population - I reckon that would probably lead to between quarter and half a million dead in the UK, not to mention the chance of new, vaccine resistant or more deadly, variants emerging.
3. "Zero Covid" - which I agree needs a curtailing of liberties which I'm not entirely comfortable with, but I'd take it in exchange for life getting back to near normal. I do wonder whether, if the messaging had been clearer up front and things like the Cummings debacle hadn't happened, would we have managed to pull together better as a population to drive it voluntarily and not need to legislate so much? We'll never know for sure and frankly I doubt it, I don't think the UK population is wired that way.
So whilst I agree you present a compelling case against 3, I personally think it's the "least worst" option. Bottom line is that pandemics are a bit shite and there's no "good" way to deal with them.