The government not ordering a lockdown is ... not a lockdown. Citizens voluntarily minimizing things like eating out is not a lockdown.
Conflating the two seems like an attempt to blunt the stark reality of what a real lockdown is : an enforced, blatant overreach of government control.
The stark reality of a real lockdown is that it is a set of rules which if everyone obeys - COVID infection rate reduces. If not enough people obey - COVID infection rate increases.
There are two separate issues: is this an overreach of government control? And - is a lockdown the best solution to this crisis.
Conflating those two issues - as Mark U has done, is a problem.
Obviously, a lockdown is a very extreme measure, and if you don't like it you may argue against it as an abuse of governmental power.
That however is just wrong. It is accepted that governments have all sorts of rules to keep people safe. For example, driving on the right (left in UK) side of the road. Individually it is a restriction of civil liberties. Collectively it is important, and important that everyone reliable drives on the same side of the road, or accidents happen.
So a legitimate use of governmental power in any society is to enforce what is needed collectively to keep people safe. That is the justification for COVID lockdown. You may believe it is not necessary to keep people safe, or even that it does the oppositite, but that is just because you have a different view about the correct action to take in this extraordinary time - not because it is an abuse of government power.