As someone turning 70 next month, I think this is an interesting argument. With tens of millions of people out of work or soon to be, the trade-offs between having the economy tank to depression levels, and having tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of people die is terrible to contemplate, but it is where we are.
What we need right now is leadership, and it just could not be more lacking. We need someone to say, "Here are the tough choices we have to make as a society. We are going to do X, Y, and Z." But that would require leadership more concerned about the country than about being leaders. We see some of that at the state level, but precious little at the national level.
To me (and those who know my liberal leanings will find this surprising), I think some level of middle road between total lockdown and total open is required. It is a very tough choice as people will violate it, and it will cause problems for the medical system. I would lean more toward the lockdown side of the equation, but people are going to be hurting severely soon, and commerce needs to continue. The big issue would be to not overburden the health care system if the virus gets out of hand. So that means the big question is whether Americans can follow strict protocols under lesser restrictions.
Before we go to a more open system, we need dramatically expanded testing facilities and more supplies for protection. But once this can be sorted, I would advocate gradually lessening restrictions.
I'm working from home (which is in New Zealand) and am in a very good setting, but I'm willing to stay in isolation for a year or so if it helps the broader issue. I claim as much right to live as someone who is 45 or even 25, but I'm also willing to kick in by staying home for a while.