Almost every country in the world is seeing similar per-capita death rates, about 1 in 1000 people so far, skewing much towards the old and/or already unhealthy.
Some perceive this as a high risk and would be happy to impose a police state on everyone to stop the pandemic.
Others perceive this as a low risk to themselves and don't want to give up a year or two of their lives to lockdowns.
Who gets to decide?
I'm a big believer on not unnecessarily imposing on other people. I think it's fine that you want to self-isolate. That is not my choice. I hope you can respect that.
It's not a binary choice between sacrificing the most vulnerable people and long periods of social distancing (the US has not ever really had anything resembling a lockdown, maybe your country has if you are from elsewhere; in the US we have had weakly enforced shelter in place orders and business closures).
In the US, smarter choices could have resulted in less death and a more robust economy. Just some leadership and resources devoted to contact tracing could have made a huge difference in how things went after May.
Were there any states that did real lockdowns or contact tracing? If not, then perhaps the political will did not exist to do so. There certainly is disagreement on such things. If peoples of so many states could not agree on more drastic measures, it would not have been right to impose them from above. Also the constitution limits what the federal government can do in this regard.
Some perceive this as a high risk and would be happy to impose a police state on everyone to stop the pandemic.
Others perceive this as a low risk to themselves and don't want to give up a year or two of their lives to lockdowns.
Who gets to decide?
I'm a big believer on not unnecessarily imposing on other people. I think it's fine that you want to self-isolate. That is not my choice. I hope you can respect that.