Well, I guess that is one way to look at it. But there is another side to this that is a bunch more pragmatic and a lot less overwrought.

The average healthy middle aged person has a minuscule chance of dying from this virus. By minuscule, I mean .0something. And you want that person to risk loosing all that he has worked for, possibly for years, to protect someone else. Someone whose lifestyle may have contributed to their personal vulnerability. Someone, whom if they do what they are told, and quarantine themselves, should not be dependent on someone else's actions.

People should take responsibility for their own health and safety. Especially the most vulnerable of us. My own father is 91 and in a nursing home. I have seen him once in two months. At a distance. That is difficult, but very necessary. He and his facility must be protected from this infection for obvious reasons. But that means quarantining them, not the rest of us.

For someone half his age and in good health, being locked away does little to nothing for them. And more and more indications are that lock downs do little for the rates of infections across large areas. Targeted quarantines appear to be much more effective.

So destroying a person's financial health may do nothing for the health of the world at large.