Why is that not an option?
I'm not defending government's actions here. I'm just showing what the 'angry people against lockdown' are feeling.
In Portugal the societal help was full of limitations (if you were self employed but made even 50 euros that month, you would get no help, but if you made nothing, you would get around 500, smart no? - it was later changed) and cuts but somehow we found 1.7 billion to save an already unprofitable and bankrupted airline which seems that will still need 100 million per month from government not to close.
Who is going to lobby on behalf for the general public, banks have well paid lobbyists who will make sure that most banks will get a bail out when they are in trouble.
More realistically would be a minimum of nine months of strict lockdown if you want it to actually be worth doing.
Now you're talking $2 trillion or more, because that level of economic damage would prove far worse than the 2008 crisis. $8 trillion in the US, at a minimum. For one pandemic, for part of one year. To do that would be insane.
Germany could afford it in theory, and it'd be a helluva price to pay for a slightly above average pandemic (1918-1920 laughs at this pandemic so far). Planning to do the same thing in another 10 or 20 years when the next global pandemic hits? How do you plan to pay for the next great recession? Shall we pretend that nothing else bad will happen in the next decade or two and spend our brains out on this one pandemic? There is a reckoning coming from the shortsighted economic choices that have been made in Europe and the US over the past 20 years.