The euphemism of “Life expectancy of the whole population” is disguising that you’re saying 200k-1.7 million deaths is worth you not having to stay home for 4 months. This isn’t even factoring in the millions who will suffer severe cases needing hospitalization and suffering permanent lung damage but won’t die.

Secondly, the article you linked has several arguments against your own conclusion. For example, that many will suffer permanent lung damage, a significant multiple of the number of people who will die will be seriously ill and need hospitalization, and that this cost-benefit analysis overvalues the lives of the young over the old.