The point is you have the safe approach and a risky approach(D vs S). At this point we have to idea if the safe approach really is the safe approach.
We know the safe approach is saving lives. At what cost, and is that cost worth it, short term and long term... definitely factors that need to be considered. But to say that it's not really the safer approach is plain wrong.
My argument isn't that there are no virtues or values to the riskier approach. I have an uneducated opinion, and I'm not belittling those who think the risks are worth it. My issue is with the fallacy that the herd immunity theory should come into play at this point, with zero data pointing to it's relevance to this virus. You think the deaths are worth it? You think ignoring long term effects are worth it? I disagree, but that's just a difference in opinion. You want to argue we should stop isolating in the name of herd immunity? Sorry, that gets under my skin.