Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus?

Herd immunity is risky because some people will die of coronavirus

Question: Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus?
Position‹3 of 4›: Herd immunity is a risky bet
Argument1 of 2›: Herd immunity is risky because some people will die of coronavirus

The coronavirus has claimed thousands of lives around the globe.

The argument

Over 300,000 people have died from the coronavirus globally. Most of the people who died are more susceptible to not recovering from infection. According the Mayo Clinic, people who are elderly, obese, experience heart and lung problems, and have diabetes will have a harder time recovering from the coronavirus. In 2017, the World Health Organization estimates that about 235 million people in the world suffer from asthma. If there are that many people who suffer just from asthma alone, imagine the amount of people around the globe who are elderly and suffer from heart and lung diseases. Waiting for herd immunity to take affect could produce deadly consequences.

Premises

[P1]Over 300,000 people have died from coronavirus globally, and the most vulnerable—the elderly, obese, and those with heart, lung, or diabetic conditions—are least likely to recover from infection. [P2] With hundreds of millions worldwide suffering such conditions (the WHO estimates 235 million asthma sufferers alone), waiting for herd immunity to take effect could produce deadly consequences. [C] Therefore, because many people will die of coronavirus, herd immunity is a risky bet.

Counter-arguments

Herd immunity would be able stop the spread of coronavirus before it reaches people that could die from the coronavirus. If the people who were more prone to dying from the virus stayed away from the public long enough, immune people would soon outweigh the infection rate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] Herd immunity would save more people from the coronavirus in the long run.