The mass isolation approach fails for me on multiple levels. First, why would you change the way 100% of the things work when all you have to do is change the w

The mass isolation approach fails for me on multiple levels. First, why would you change the way 100% of the things work when all you have to do is change the way 5% to 10% of the things work? Why not employ levels of isolation that are proportionally aggressive to vulnerability to serious symptoms or death? Second, I thought we decided that trying to manhandle nature because we think we know better doesn't work? Wouldn't we be better off if we let nature take it's course so that 90% of the population suffers mild flu systems, but gains some level of enhanced immunity to further protect the vulnerable groups going forward while at the same time not collapsing the economy?