Maybe, people did get complacent because they want what they want their needs comes first before the national good.
As you no doubt know how universally reviled Tony Blair is, it was for different reasons, we can't really retrospectively speculate today's events to Tony Blair's Premiership response to Coronavirus.
It is now today not the past, Boris got the job of dealing with it no one else.
People have generally been very good about obeying rules, especially back in the spring, but repeated claims that it would be over soon, which hasn't happened, then this shambolic situation over christmas, with a U-turn after people had made plans and in many cases spent money stocking up, has clearly proved a step too far.
Whatever you think of Blair, he was generally a capable leader, and would have handled this much more competently (and to avoid any suggestions of bias, I would say the same about Thatcher). Johnson is completely out of his depth, and seems incapable of devising a strategy and sticking to it.
Who do you suggest should step to the role of dealing with it ?
Well, this is the problem - Johnson has stuffed his cabinet largely with yes-men and women. Labour isn't a lot better, although Starmer would probably manage the situation better than Johnson even if he followed similar tactics (as has Sturgeon - I don't agree with her tactics, but she has been far more consistent, and communicated vastly better, than Johnson).
There are probably backbenchers in both parties who would do a much better job, but nobody is going to try to oust Johnson at the moment.