It's a perfectly reasonable set of questions.
Please note I stress that I am commenting on the virus "regime".
Is the virus real? I think we should assume it is real, regardless of the facts. Let's say it is real.
Should we concern ourselves with whether it is (a) natural phenomena, or (b) man-made;
and whether regardless of its provenance, the spread of the virus was due to (a) chance events, or (b) intentional release?
Again, I say, to seriously answer any of these questions is an unreasonable burden. So, let's call it an "act of god".
Now, we are at the point to discuss sensible response, rational response, reasonable response, to a collective health issue: a virus that has reached pandemic stage and posses certain risk probabilies across various demographics.
Does the above scenario mandate that governmental norms be bent if not broken? For example, is it acceptable that from now on society will be governed by executive decrees and not legislative bodies?
How long should we tolerate such encroachments on what we know to be the basis of free societies?
Should not a health care matter of such grave import and impact on our lives be subject to the input of a wide range of experts in related subject matters?
What "authority" has designated certain institutions, such as the Imperial College as an example, as fonts of indisputable claims regarding the gravity of the situation and required remedies?
Why are dissenting experts and workers in the "frontlines" subject to media blackout, de-platforming, and loss of income?
I could go on and practically write a little book here. But that should suffice as to "why" some of us are rather concerned, to say the least.