Oh please get over yourself with the absurdly dramatic hyperbole. The deadliest thing most of us will ever have a chance of coming into contact with? you can't even get your numbers right with the drama. At 0.5% mortality and the unlikely case of 100% infection of the whole U.S population, it certainly wouldn't amount to millions and millions of dead.
Sure, it can in exceptionally rare, outlier cases kill anyone, just as do many infectious diseases whose presence we live with daily without shutting down economies and possibly causing hundreds of thousands of indirect deaths.. Gigantic, overly broad population-affecting policies of a particular and known destructive nature should not be based off such highly uncommon outliers. These things are more than a bit too important to just be figured out later as you casually say.
By far and away, it kills the elderly and even among them (again, these are the actual numbers from the vast majority of major infection sites and countries) the vast majorities of those elderly deaths are among people over the age of 70-75.
Check the numbers for yourself from any country you care to name that has published them and has enough fatalities for a more complete picture of their demographic profile. These people must be protected, of course but given the literal cross-demographic human costs of the most extreme economic measures and shelter in place rules that many still propose, a serious acceptance of discussing alternative measures for protecting the elderly while still saving the economy should absolutely be welcomed.
This kind of panicked terrified posting that disregards a wealth of contradictory and differing evidence is not at all helpful to any reasonable discussion. Furthermore, what are you yourself engaging in if not your own armchair epidemiology?
It's as if a certain large subset masturbatory hypochondriac hive mind of commentators at Hacker news is so emotionally attached to its own panicky speculation from a month or two ago when much less evidence of lower mortality rates and high asymptomatic infection was available, that some of you simply can't abide mor optimistic divergent points of view even now despite steadily growing evidence to the contrary of previously higher expected mortality rates.
Even if we accept that this virus is indeed deadly for certain vulnerable populations (a thing virtually nobody denies) and that more drastic social distancing measures are still extremely important for a while yet, then at least allowing calm debate on real human consequences of economic destruction, and debate of different policies for dealing with these consequences should always be welcomed without emotional overload.