Yes you are selfish, and admittedly emotionally irrational as well. If your only criterion is that you do not want your loved ones to die because something els

Yes you are selfish, and admittedly emotionally irrational as well. If your only criterion is that you do not want your loved ones to die because something else that affects millions and is in fact necessary for millions of others to continue living decently goes on, then you're implicitly stating that a vast number of sometimes risky things should stop because there is a non-zero (and in many cases of things commonly done) higher-than-covid-death possibility that one of these things will kill some loved one of yours. Now you're welcome to your personal, selfish and emotionally charged view of course but public policy and rules that affect billions of human beings cannot be decided on the slimmest margins of possibility that someone somebody else loves will die. Doing so will in any case indirectly or directly cause somebody else that someone else loves to die. The global economic depression we seem to have unleashed at this point will also very, very likely cause misery and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people who are the loved ones of someone who does not want them to die. Now, the lockdowns that have been the case so far were in large part based on what are looking more like over-inflated initial estimates of mortality for the virus, so based on precaution derived from these initial estimates, it was understandable that they were implemented even if they had their own risks, but now if the mortality rate of the virus is indeed much lower than previously expected, it's only irresponsible to continue with lockdown measures that cause tremendous harm of their own for many reasons. Least of all should they be continued because there's always a handful of people like you who say "But my loved ones, I don't care about anything else no matter how minor the risk to these people I know"..