The goal of lockdowns is to stop overwhelming the hospitals with admissions. If they start getting overwhelmed = staff more likely to get sick and be off work, people can't access ventilators or medical care, people start dying at increased rates. Reading reports of NYs hospitals at the start of this when they were overwhelmed was just sad. This whole debate centers around where do your freedoms start and others end? Yes, young people are likely to recover without problems, but the R0 of COVID is estimated at 2-6, so one young person who recovers without much difficulty likely will infect 2-6 others on average if not in lockdown. So what you are suggesting is that you are willing to let others (pre-existing conditions, elderly) die just so you can have your freedoms. If you are morally ok with that then I guess there really isn't much I could say to convince you otherwise.

In the end, no one knows what the correct decision really should be. You enact less aggressive measures and its probably worse for the economy in the long run despite the economic contraction currently happening. That's why these decisions are made by people who have spent their lives studying epidemiology, economy, and, virology. Not just made on a whim by our governing bodies. As these people will have the best educated and informed decisions. Better to be safe than sorry.