[jmull]

I'm not sure you appreciate what "no government lockdown" vs. a soft lockdown means.

You can consider some of the ways it could go:

(1) people/businesses do voluntarily substantially the same things as soft lockdowns codify. In that case, the impact on the economy, deaths, hospitalizations, etc, are about the same.

(2) people/businesses do substantially less. Deaths/hospitalizations increase. I think the economy probably does worse -- many people get scared and avoid many kinds of economic activity, take their kids out of school, etc. Other businesses are disrupted as employees and owners get ill. In the US, the large number of seriously ill uninsured/underinsured throw an anchor on to the economy for years to come.

You suggest to "sacrifice the old and obese", but it's not clear there's a payoff for that sacrifice. We may end up with 2x-5x dead and a worse, longer-lasting economic situation.