You and others focus on the health/mortality risks with little or no consideration of the economic costs/risks. How much economic cost is a life worth? Who knows? But these economic costs should not be neglected.

To illustrate, consider a quick reductio ad absurdum: What if we decided that flattening the curve was the only priority, and mandated a complete 2-month quarantine. Everyone had to stay home and not leave their houses for 2 months (violators shot on sight). Result? With 0 economic production (except 'autarkic' production, i.e. what you can produce yourself), everyone but the preppers run out of food and water (utility operators had to stay home also), and we have mass starvation.

This is, of course, silly and extreme (that's the point of a reductio), but even at more reasonable levels of economic interruption, you are literally causing people to lose their livelihoods and some (those in 3rd world countries who are at the beginning of American supply chains), very possibly, to starve. A global economic collapse would likely kill millions. Are you really willing to put such a collapse on the table in order to flatten the curve? (Honestly, it may be too late already, but I still hope we can jump-start production quickly enough to avoid total catastrophe.)

Economics reminds us that "there are no solutions, only trade-offs." Are you sure you really want to make that trade?