Whether you think this is crazy or not depends on whether you share the premise this strategy is based on: namely that there is no solution which prevents wides

Whether you think this is crazy or not depends on whether you share the premise this strategy is based on: namely that there is no solution which prevents widespread infection and that all quarantine measures are no more than temporary and might be damaging if they push a second peak into the winter. The plan is to lockdown the vulnerable and let the virus run its course through the rest of society. In this scenario you think(/hope) that the people not locked down only get mild versions of the disease and so don't require hospitalisation. You come out the other side with herd immunity which (again you hope) stops the disease from gaining a foothold again. Lots of unknowns, of course, but if your starting point is complete infection of the population is inevitable then it doesn't seem necessarily any riskier than other methods and has the merit of being quicker if nothing else. If you think complete infection is preventable then it looks reckless at best, and a borderline genocide at worst.