This new variant has been called "mild." I hope this proves to be true, and is not used as an excuse for another lockdown. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
Why do you say "excuse for another lockdown"? Are you implying that someone in government has alterior motives to desire a lockdown?
The problem is that some steps are more conspicuous than others and that doesn't always align with efficacy. An obvious example is wearing a mask vs. washing your hands. They're both effective measures, but one can be seen by anyone and the other happens in the privacy of your bathroom, so one gets politicized and over-emphasized even if they're both of similar importance.
It works the same way for politicians. If things are going poorly, they're expected to do something. But their incentive is to do things that are conspicuous, even if they have a high cost and therefore a low cost/benefit ratio.
Almost any kind of mandate falls into this category because the cost/benefit for doing that thing is going to depend on individual characteristics. "Stay at home" may be a better strategy for someone who lives with amiable people than someone who lives alone and suffers from depression, or who lives with an abuser, but blanket mandates don't distinguish them. And yet when cases spike, Something Must Be Done.