I am one of those, who think that way, as a preferred solution. Now there are of course many problems with this approach, because who is "vulnerable"? Who decides on that. Because it also means, that those categorized as not vulnerable, would be expected to go to work etc. and those who do get quarantined should get compensated, otherwise they must go out, out of basic needs (money).

Now for some, this would mean, you can get paid vacation, if you just say, you have been a heavy smoker. Abuse of the system. So medical tests for classification of "vulnerable"? And then who compensates the relatives of the people who were classificated "non-risk" and forced to work, but did get sick and died of it?

So it is not easy. But I still think, that direction would be easier, because "We can absolutely make it through a few months if we have to, while they do their work" is only valid, for people with lots of savings. People who live from paycheck to paycheck cannot. They would need help (from government most likely) or die. And who helps all those, who spend years building up a business and have it all wasted, to protect other people? Is that fair? And there are government programs in place all around the world, but I have serious doubts, that they really compensate in a meaningful way. So the result will be most likely, the big survive and prosper (see Amazon) and the small vanishes. So killing the weak in the name of protecting the weak?

Now yes, it is usually a different thing to die economically and to die literally, but for some the result might be the same. Their live work shattered.

So this is the other side.

There is no easy solution I see, but for context: look at all the poor countries, they really have no other way, than "let it wash over them". You can't really lock people in their home for long(even though they try), if their home is a crowded metal shed in the slums with no AC, power or even running water. They will be cocked, before they starve to death. So what can they do? Live on. But it does not seem to me, that Covid-19 really takes a higher death toll, than all the other diseases are already taking. Some die, but the rest lives on.

This is harsh, but the way it is for them and somewhat working. And in any case, that also means, that the virus cannot really be wiped out globally. So is the solution really to lock the rich world in and the poor world out, until someday maybe a reliable cure or vaccine gets deployed? Well, that seems to be the current plan and it might work, but not if the total lockdown goes on forever. Because then, some parts of the "rich" world will also turn into "poor", with no other choice than working again and take the losses.