We're talking at cross-purposes, for reasons I can't discern. I'm not advocating a complete lock-down, or any of the most draconian measures taken by China; they're simply not feasible in a democratic society.
Again, the article which you posted made a very specific statement: that there is a choice between maintaining "normal activities" at the cost of some elderly lives OR taking measures that curb the virus, but that affect our social and financial sector. What measures is rather vague, but there are many that can have a negative economic effect without going full China authoritarian.
My argument is that there is no way to chose that first option. It's a fake option because if we all go about our normal activity, giving free rein to the spread of coronavirus, then the disease itself will shut down those "normal activities" anyway. As more and more people become ill, you won't have to cancel events, people will simply stop attending gatherings, they'll avoid stores, they'll cancel flights and vacations, they'll stay home regardless of whether they're ordered to or not.
The choices we face are which normal activities to deliberately disrupt and to what degree and how soon, but there is no avenue toward maintaining our current social/financial health. There is no sacrificial offering of old people that will save us from some pain.