//Whether or not we should have locked down is another interesting discussion but given that we did then furlough was a must.//
Quite right tora. You can't confine people to home so that they cannot earn a living unless you are going to replace their earnings in some way. However, as you say, whether there should have been a lockdown is another matter entirely.
//The NHS is on it's last legs as it is. Can you imagine what state it would be in if there hadn't been a lockdown?//
No I couldn't, Zacs. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that neither could anybody else (either now or at the time it was implemented). That includes the people who took the decision to implement it and those who advised them.
It is now becoming abudantly clear that the "cure" is turning out to be far worse than the disease (as many counselled at the time). There is the financial fallout as mentioned above, which will take a generation or more to settle, as well as the healthcare consequences which will also run for many, many years. It is doubtful that the NHS in its current form will ever recover from it.
It's still not be explained why the UK's pandemic action plan (which did not involve lockdowns or furlough, was approved by the WHO and which had been in place for 20 years) was summarily ditched in the ten days or so prior to the first lockdown. It probably never will. If there are any apologies to be made, it is by the politicians and their advisors who made that decision because as far as I can see, it was never justified.
//This piece by The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explains why we had to have a lockdown much better than I could.//
As far as I can see, Zacs, that piece referred to "Lockdown 2" (5th November 2020). The die was cast by Lockdown 1 in March. Once the Rubicon had been crossed it was a simple matter to justify further restrictions. The alarming thing is that the summary withdrawal of people's rights to go about their business was achieved so easily.