It seems probable that the inability to close down critical infrastructure (ie medical, utilities, food) and the exceptional contageousness of the virus will likely thwart any attempt to eliminate it via isolation. It lowers the burden on the medical system for sure, but it just delays the eventual spread. Consider that 50 to 95% of Native Americans died from infectious disease after Europeans arrived, while the fastest method of transport at the time was a horse and most food was locally grown.

It's commonly stated that the average US citizen lives paycheck to paycheck, and it's fair to guess a large fraction of those would be laid off during this period.

If you're optimizing for strain on the healthcare system, then I suppose a 5 week lockdown makes sense. That said, unless a plan addresses providing for the millions of people who can no longer afford food and rent during said lockdown, it seems likely we'd encounter an entirely different set of problems. I don't know what the effect of a 10% contraction in GDP would be, but I think that's what you would need to weigh slowing the spread of the virus against. I'd be interested if someone knowledgable could do the math on lost years of life from 14% of the elderly dying vs such a severe economic contraction.