I'm not arguing against comparing different policies, I'm just pre-emptively pointing out a flawed way of interpreting the data. You can see people trying to interpret it that way elsewhere in this thread already... for example in the math in this (now flagged dead, not by me) comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28342601
Neither of your points A or B are at all discussed in this data, nor are they responsive to my comment. I'd classify them as largely off topic and I'm not going to respond past pointing that out. The data at hand does not discuss financial costs of either lockdowns or letting people get sick. Does not compare risks between different age groups (apart from giving number of deaths under 65). Does not discuss policy ideas. Etc.
The data points that A and B exist and are worthy of further consideration. The data is likely too noisy to draw further conclusions. Perhaps in your neck of woods things are different, but on USA West Coast there is near zero public discussion of either cost tradeoffs or age groups.
Neither of your points A or B are at all discussed in this data, nor are they responsive to my comment. I'd classify them as largely off topic and I'm not going to respond past pointing that out. The data at hand does not discuss financial costs of either lockdowns or letting people get sick. Does not compare risks between different age groups (apart from giving number of deaths under 65). Does not discuss policy ideas. Etc.