This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can encourage just the at-risk to isolate and end up with like 18 low-risk and 2 high-risk. It should be self evident which course is better. Unfortunately the world has been tricked into viewing “herd immunity” as a dirty word as opposed to an emergent phenomenom.
Arbitrary and capricious regulations like this aren’t just ethically wrong, they’ee bad public health.
Unfortunately the disastrous Jacobson v Massachusetts decision laid the groundwork for this stuff. The Jacobson decision was later used to justify forced sterilization of the mentally retarded, as just one example of where a collectivist, “for the greater good” mentality inevitably takes you.