That's a ridiculous false choice fallacy. First of all, the 5% doesn't make sense and is demonstrably false. You are cherry picking the data that fits you and assuming everyone infected got tested. Also, if you go by your logic, why do you think killing 5% of the population better than killing even more people by completely wrecking the supply chains that allow us to treat enough people?
Also, you've literally ignored all of my argument that addressed what would be better and why it would be better. You also shifted back to a rhetorical question to avoid talking about whatever you said about dead people in the streets. It's absurd to move the goalposts like this.
But even if you are clearly being dishonest here, I'll say it again. The best option would be to not lock down the vast majority of the population because it will only mean less resources to help the sick and fight against the disease itself. It will also only lead to a breaking point where people will simply not be able to afford to stay on lockdown no matter how bad it gets. That will make the whole thing much more deadly because people will simply not follow any measure if they are hungry or completely broke.
