Selfish but practical thought: CoronaVirus fatality rate is just 2%, so why should the rest 98% suffer lockdown for sake of the 2%?

A lot of people are quite enthusiastic about "safely" staying at home amid the lockdown perhaps not just in India but many other countries too. But sooner or later, as the days turn into weeks and the weeks turn into months, this thought is surely going to cross many peoples' minds as humans are by nature selfish beings (and there isn't anything wrong in it, most will agree!).

Let's consider what will happen if these people are let out to go about as per their business. The fear right now isn't that they'll catch the disease and die but the fear is that they'll become "carriers" and infect some 1-2% of people who might be vulnerable to this disease and might even die from it. That fact that they could be elderly people who might be already suffering from heart and/or kidney disease, etc. and their condition could be worsened due to CoronaVirus is also quite a disastrous thought.

But on the flip side, sooner or later you'll have to let the people out, you can't keep them locked in their homes forever. And the hope is that the CoronaVirus would have been finished off by that time (it could be either out of most peoples' systems thus ridding them of "carrier" status or it'd have consumed them and taken their lives). In that case, there will be no virus in the wild and the world governments would have won this battle. But let's assume for a second that doesn't happen and the virus is still in somebody's system even after 3-6 months, then what?

Are we going to create "corona checkpoints" at every city and state entrance and be schizophrenic about this forever? In that case, we're back to the question about the greater good. If humanity is being so altruistic right now that its caring about 1-2% of its populace which is a potential fatality to this deadly virus, then where was this humanity vanished until now? Why don't we create lockdowns and/or declare emergencies for climate change (for example) which is perhaps an ever greater issue if you consider the long-term impact. There is also the case of so many millions of homeless people who don't get enough food to eat or clothes to wear and their number may be far greater than the 1-2% who might be future casualties to CoronaVirus.

People dying is a huge deal but certainly isn't unprecedented in human history. The black plague wiped off more than half of Europe's population in the medieval ages, Genghiz Khan perhaps wiped off an even greater number in Asia. And then there are riots, shootings, terrorist attacks, street crimes, road accidents, etc. which also take a huge toll and when combined, the Corona fatalities will turn out to be minuscule in number. I'm not saying that having lockdowns to stop spreading of this virus was wrong - it might indeed turn out to be a life-saving thing but we don't have the data yet, all I'm asking is why don't we show such extreme preparedness to find other evils in society, don't you think just one problem is taking a disproportionate attention of the whole of humanity?