Wouldnt this just create the environment for a more resistant virus in a shorter period of time?
I did not calculated the chances yet but here is what my probability intuition is saying
Having 50% of population go through virus in one year creates a less fit environment for a more resistant mutation than having 50% of population being exposed to virus in 2-3 months.
Like more encounters over a shorter period of time is a good environment to allow survival of resistant mutations.
For me, this would be a point where I would fully rely on the experts for deciding how to implement that step and check if the plan is feasible. I don't recommend executing such ideas without syncing with authorities and experts.
That shouldn't stop us from brain storming, though, and allow experts to decide, if it's an interesting idea or stupid.