I think you may be mistaken. Herd immunity is generally considered to require c65% of the infectable population to get infected and then recover. France has seen nothing like that number and remember, for the US, that would require about 220 million people to catch this disease. Say the US was able to achieve a much better than average outcome, halving the number of deaths seen elsewhere, that would still suggest one death per 2000 (and that would be comparatively very good), that’s 110,000 extra deaths: But that is only part of the story. The point about flattening the curve is the capacity of the healthcare system to treat people, especially those who are really sick for weeks or months, on ventilators and in induced comas in ITU beds. Estimates are that 20% of those infected need hospitalisation – so, say, 44,000,000 people. There are surveys available that show a non-flattened peak affecting 40% of the population would cause demand in excess of the number of ICU beds by 274%. And that was at 40%! And you talk about going to herd immunity, 65%? Even to get this much capacity, other use must be curtailed. USA ICU beds are normally c67% utilised – so to free up capacity, you have to delay other treatments, defer other surgery and procedures. Some of those folk will die as a result. Honestly, I think this is a lot more complex than you suggest. One more point, evidence is emerging that many survivors seem to have significant health issues which could be lifelong. If so, is allowing 2/3rds of the population to contract this disease a good plan? No other civilised nation in the world has concluded it is.