One thing that did occur to me: if it is mostly the elderly and vulnerable who get affected, why don't we concentrate the isolation efforts on them, and allow t

One thing that did occur to me: if it is mostly the elderly and vulnerable who get affected, why don't we concentrate the isolation efforts on them, and allow the rest of the society to live semi-normally. It's not that I can't be asked to sit at home. Rather: - There is a huge economical toll from locking up everyone. And it's economies that pay for hospitals - While everything else is shut, what diseases, damage etc. is done elsewhere? How many people will die because their lesser-priority illnesses get forgotten? - Would we not be better placed, as societies, to help vulnerable people, if we remained productive? - Do we get best of both worlds of "herd immunity" and protecting those likely to die? As a healthy young person I'm fully committed to protecting the vulnerable, I just wonder if the above is better than an all-out lockdown. [EDIT: formatting]