Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument seems strange to me. Only 300 people have died because of the policies that were put in place. Relaxing those policies will increase that number. Now there could be debate about whether that new number is "acceptable" or not. But we shouldn't use the success of the quarantine-like policies to argue that quarantine-like policies are unnecessary.
"Only 300 people have died because of the policies that were put in place. Relaxing those policies will increase that number." This is an assumption, and it's a bad one. The paucity of deaths in young people is true around the world, regardless of lockdown policy. Sweden, for example, does not have a higher proportion of young people dying.
It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/inf...
It is also irrefutable that contracting COVID-19 carries risk - especially for high-risk individuals with comorbidities (yes, even young people)
Combined, I don't see how you can come up with a hypothesis where getting people together would somehow be equally as safe as keeping people apart.
Again, this is just one aspect that policy makers have to consider. There is also the economy, mental health, etc. I think having those discussions is very interesting - how much should we protect our health vs our way of life? There are very valid arguments against continuing the shut-down.
But acknowledging that social practices directly impact virus transmission is a necessary step to have meaningful discussion.