It's a mulitlayer moral dilemma isn't it? Do you sacrifice people to save people who are too weak to handle the change in their lifestyle? How do you determine value? (Edit - sorry motorman, I didn't mean to imply that your friends were weak. The reasons for suicide are complex.)
These discussions are similar to the environmental discussions, just more extreme. Loggers who "need" trees to cut down, and will cut down everything they can find. Fishermen who need to fish until all of the fish are gone. People need to drive their cars or fly to the global warming conferences.
Human beings supposedly are "superior" to other animals because we are adaptable. We change as conditions change and control our environment. That's why we are spread around the world.
If you dig down in to the rationale of the cure being worse than the disease, it mostly comes down to comfort. People miss their routine and society is designed to reward only people who do "work". The methods and means exist to learn to live with the virus. But, ironically, many people don't want to put in the real "work" to do it.
We're almost back to the "death panels" from early Affordable Care Act discussions.
Finally, a cartoon -
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/apr/16/david-squires-on-the-coronavirus-hot-take-factory