There is some information that informs us on the effects of various interventions versus the good ol' "let her rip" approach. In 2007 PNAS published a paper that looked into this question with regards to the 1918 influenza pandemic. Not all of the interventions seemed to have a positive effect (that being an overall reduction in deaths), and cities with early and severe interventions did have follow on waves of infection, but it seems the overall number of deaths was much lower compared to cities (e.g Philadelphia) that didn't do anything. Also, SARs-CoV-2 is not influenza (was Knut trying to muddy the waters on that one?). We don't know if lasting immunity can be achieved through exposure or a possible vaccine, it would seem that transmission is higher than influenza, we don't know what the mortality rate will end up being. Italy is currently at about 12.5% of reported cases, but apparently not all deaths are reported (nor are all cases identified) due to the fact that some victims crash so quickly they are dying at home. What is clear is that the health care systems in Italy and NYC are overwhelmed, which exacerbates the problems and produces stocking images of mass graves.

I think we should remember that in Utah we are doing very well. We've got plenty of space to physically distance, the population is one of the healthiest in the country (low rates of smoking, drinking, obesity, active lifestyles, etc) and the interventions imposed may just about right for our situation. However, this is not the case in other countries, and we are yet to see the effects in developing nations. If you thought the "great toilet paper scare of 2020" was bad, imagine what wide spread disease in the food production industry would look like.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/104/18/7582.full.pdf