I have never been involved in a war, but for me this is a silent war, where our politicians are willing to sacrifice the good hearted people, that work hard and try to provide for the society, for the few bleating hearts that believe everything should be sunshine and lollipops and every life is savable no matter what the cost is, as long as they are not paying.
I personally wouldn't take it that far (though of course you have every right to) but my underlying concern, the "big" one, is this really.
If I skydive, ski, ride horses, ride motorbikes or whatever well again there are risks in that something could go wrong which injures or kills me. Known risks which I can choose to take or not take.
If I fail to exercise, eat too much sugar, smoke or whatever well then there are known consequences from that from a statistical perspective. Further, I can choose to exercise or not exercise, smoke or not smoke, and sugar is at least largely avoidable if one chooses to avoid it. We can scale that up to 1000, 10,000, 1 million or however many people and say that if they all smoke regularly or don't exercise or whatever then x number of them will die because of that and y will suffer a non-death but significant health consequence and z will avoid meaningful impacts.
Now the problem with COVID-19 is that nobody seems willing to answer the question. If 1 million people are all infected then what happens?
How many die in the short term?
How many die in the longer term?
How many suffer a non-death health impact? Of those, what are the impacts and when do they occur?
There's the big problem, it's an unknown. A "let it rip" approach might end up killing a hundred unfortunate people and beyond that really just knocks people out of their misery who were going to die anyway. It's the equivalent of two buses running into each other and killing everyone on board.
Or it might be signing us up for another $100 billion in health care costs plus double that in other costs for years to come as it brings whatever debilitating impact to the population.
It would be a real tragedy if for example it turns out that (using hypothetical but not impossible examples) we need to ensure any woman who's had it never has a child otherwise it'll be badly impacted. Or if it turns out that it knocks 20+ years off average life expectancy. Or whatever.
Now those are purely hypothetical examples and it could well be that there's nothing to worry about. There's the problem - if someone could properly answer that question, as to exactly what the impacts are, well then a far more sensible discussion becomes straightforward.
Until that time though it's basically gambling. It's akin to discussing buying shares in whatever company but all we have is a price chart which goes back 6 months with a disclaimer on it that volume data only includes a random selection of trades and is this totally inaccurate. We have no useful fundamental information about the company, we don't know who any of the directors are indeed we don't even know if it has an actual business or it's just a wannabe. We are however considering forcing most of the population, business and government to put literally all of their assets into this venture. That could end either brilliantly or in catastrophic disaster.
If the facts were known then, depending on what they turn out to be, I may well jump to the "let it rip" view. Doing so without knowing the implications would however be one hell of a gamble from which there's no going back.
That said, I don't doubt that the economic aspects are also becoming a disaster. On that front I'll observe that how it ends up has something in common with WW2. If we go down the "Germany" track and start over with new industries and so on then ultimately we'll emerge stronger because of this despite a major setback in the short term. If we go down the "UK" track and try and prop up what were already tired old business models into the future then we're in for a world of pain for a long time to come.