I am open to the argument. Just feels to be begging a lot of other questions.
(1) likelihood of death decreases with the passing of time, because of improved treatment (and maybe testing also). So to minimize death, you want your exposure to be delayed as long as possible.
(2) there is reasonably convincing evidence that exposure level is significant in determining severity post-infection. Therefore you want to live within a community and with habits that keep you away from high exposure as much as possible.
So, the same strategies that slowdown exposure also help to reduce deaths
That said, your first point is a good one. If made difficult by how many later waves in most places have similar death peaks to earlier ones.
I still think we are far away from really having evidence on any good strategy, sadly. All of the places that had it under control seem to have lost said control.
Which, ultimately, is a good enough argument for me, to not just give up on things that have any chance of helping. Sucks, as I am clearly open to the arguments that deniers use. Which... I'm not trying to further that angle, either.
And note that R0 can be changed by altering some environmental factors in the formula above.
So yes, almost all of us are going to be exposed to SARS-COV-2 at some point. Slowdowns are doubleplus good because the biggest risk from the disease is related to its impact on public health care systems rather than serious illness or death at the individual level. Masks slow down transmission, vaccination reduces chance of required hospitalization.