So this may come into the question of 'alt-left' vs 'left', I consider myself on the left side of things, and certainly supportive of lockdowns to try and contain the virus - not with intent to crash economy to support election outcomes - maybe some are but I think most are just concerned about the impact of COVID-19.
Given China's extreme lockdown, and their general strong support for the economy, I don't think they would have taken those steps unless they thought COVID 19 required those steps. And there are a number of studies coming out suggesting the reported death toll is far lower than the actual one.
I think there are mixed messages at times from various governments / health bodies, as to whether countries are trying to eliminate the virus through lockdown, or slow it enough so hospitals can cope, and this causes a bit of confusion therefore as to how much / how long a lockdown should be.
If going for elimination, then should be a strong lockdown until virus well on way out - but if just slowing it down, then shouldn't need to be as long, but mixed messages don't help with determining what we are trying to do here.
The collapses in medical systems we have seen in the likes of Wuhan, North Italy, New York city, Brazil and I think Iran show that we want to prevent that occuring if possible, as the mortality rate jumps when there isn't enough medical services.
After that though, it comes down whether it is feasible to eliminate, or otherwise just try and encourage people to take personal responsibility to try and reduce the spread as much as possible until vaccines or the like are available - I think Sweden has shown that it will take far too long to reach herd immunity, with too high a cost, to want to go down that route. Sweden has also shown that with a pandemic present, the economy can take a large hit whether lockdown present or not.
But I guess long story short here, I think there are valid reasons to want some form of lockdown, without it meaning that they are trying to trash economy to affect election chances.

Then of course we come to the protests - I think there have been a number of people on the left who have felt that while they support reason why they want to protest, it isn't the best time to do it in the midst of a pandemic, as comes to that personal responsibility thing. Cannoli spoke about the criticism that the anti lockdown protesters got, vs the current protests, but I think both groups have got a bit of flak around doing it in the circumstances, but at same time generally while people have criticised both, there wasn't action taken to stop them unless out of hand.

I do think rioting / looting shouldn't occur, but I think people doing so are just using the protests as a sort of cover / circumstance that allows them to do so, and not that the protesters themselves are generally wanting to do so.

Regarding people with concerns around law and order turning towards conservative candidates, I think generally that is true, but:
Is there much concern around law and order as such, as much of a concern around presence of police brutality - former definitely pushes towards conservative, latter may push it away if they feel that conservative candidates are more tolerant of police abuses.
Also, even if the former, I wonder if people see Trump generally as that sort of candidate, or if they may prefer Biden as president, but a Republican House and Senate, which may provide more stability.

Regarding actions with police, I think a lot of people feel that yes, shouldn't make trouble with police else there could be consequences, but that doesn't make the consequences right in all cases, and in fact could lead towards victim blaming. As long as people keep saying 'well if they didn't do such and such, bad stuff wouldn't have happened' then it feels that we are never getting to the underlying issues around police behaviour, and whether they are too ready to resort to violence / there is a culture among some of police brutality. Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have resisted arrest, but doing so shouldn't mean he is killed - a Taser isn't a lethal weapon, hence one of the reasons why it is there for police to use - as a non-lethal alternative, so there was nothing there to suggest Brooks should have been shot, let alone killed. If they didn't know what he was carrying, then I could understand it more, but they knew what he had.