Right, because of the drastic measures taken. If these measures are halted, that figure will skyrocket. The pandemic isn't over in the UK, it's currently under control, despite incredible expense.
Also, people who get the virus and survive may still have permanent lung damage. There's more to it than the death rate.
It not orders of magnitude worse than a bad flu season, yet the response has been unprecedented. Sweden has managed fine without any lockdown (and it's not a competition over death rates before someone starts comparing). Hospitals didn't get overwhelmed anywhere which was what the reason for lock down was all about (originally). They appear to have reached some level of herd immunity.
If hardly anyone is dying can it still be classed as a pandemic? No one bothers about a "cold pandemic", which is effectively what coronavirus is at this stage. Deaths per day are in single digits.
And you can't claim "permanent lung damage" for something that has only been around for 7 months.
> precisely because the entire country shut down for months
The way to test your hypothesis would be to look at countries that didn't lock down.
Sweden didn't shut down and had a similar outcome to most European countries. Hospitals were not overwhelmed. Looking at Euromomo they had it relatively mild in terms of excess deaths for the time of year. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Also, people who get the virus and survive may still have permanent lung damage. There's more to it than the death rate.