I don't mind Hancock, not considering his party, who he's working for and the role he's in, and it could be 1000 x worse.
Imagine having Boris, Rees-Mogg, Gove, Raab, Patel or any of those lot in that role, none of them are out for the common good and for those that are most reliant on public healthcare, they're all for the top 5% (most with private healthcare) or just plain evil.
I think Hancock is one of the easiest to throw stones at though, as the Health Secretary he's got to win over pretty much all of the labour voters (seeing as health/ NHS it's one of Labours main concerns), and will never be seen to be doing enough, no matter what happens by most Labour voters. A lot of the Tories hate him as he's perceived as the one trying to help the NHS, they kind of pin it that it's his area is the one that needs the lockdowns, and if those lockdowns are done incorrectly it means big problems for the economy.
Had we actually locked down earlier (last march and in October) as he probably wanted, and how the scientist/ modellers/ SAGE wanted, then Hancock's job would have been much simpler. There would have been a lot less death (easier ride from Labour voters), and the lockdowns would have been shorter and sharper (better for the economy and tories). What actually happened is those other than Hancock messed up, locked down too late, which then meant months of recoveries (to bail out Hancock's department) as they were too late to be implemented.
He's sort of like the fall guy, as he's the main voice of lockdown, but the issues laid at his door stem from decisions of others above him.