To answer your question, I think it is worthwhile, or at least has been to this point. Fundamentally the lockdown is intended to prevent the healthcare systems being overloaded, not to prevent deaths per se. If we let it run with no restrictions, the services infrastructure of most countries would crumble - not enough resource to treat, no means of keeping up with dealing with the dead etc. A horrible outcome, glimpses of which has been seen in countries like Ecuador, with bodies literally piled on the streets. So the lockdown doesn't need to be 100% effective, it just has to slow the spread.
However, there comes a point at which the lockdown causes more deaths overall - through immediate consequence (already being seen: overall death rate increasing beyond CV19 because people arent seeking/getting treatment for other conditions), and delayed consequence (deprivation, poverty etc). The economic estimates suggest that for the UK the tipping point of lockdown causing more deaths than the illness is around a 6.4% annual GDP drop, so we're probably past it. The problem is that this pandemic has proved that democratic governments can only really respond to public sentiment - they locked down when the public started to demand it, and will start to ease lockdown when the public pressure increases sufficiently that they can do it.
Logically, and taking the overall social and economic balance, we need to ease restrictions and accept that death rates will increase. However, this is all too easy to say when it's not you parents, your wife, your children etc etc that will die as a consequence. No easy answers....
and does it rather well , its all about smoke and mirrors , what ever you do dont stare into his eyes 
