OK, I get the math you're using. But I don't believe anyone, even the CDC, can calculate a fatality rate without knowing the number infected. I know six people in NYC who likely had the virus (including myself), and none of us were tested. Even death counts are unreliable (though more so than case counts). We're not blind statistically, but we're flying through heavy fog. The fatality rate could be 0.26% or 0.52% or 0.78%. I tend to think it's higher because we already have 26k dead in NYC, and not everyone has had the disease (0.26% would lead to less than 22,000 deaths in NYC if everyone got sick, which is clearly not the case yet).
I know this much: Without restrictions, this disease would pass through a population like shit through a goose. Consider how many corpses there would be with no restrictions and a fatality rate as low as 0.26%. Eight hundred and fifty thousand in the United States alone. Now think how many there would be if that fatality rate was a little higher. How many dead bodies are you willing to accept for a better economy? And have you considered that mass death also has negative economic consequences? Also, remember that even without government restrictions, an enormous quantity of people would stay at home and businesses would shutter voluntarily.
I'm really, really sympathetic to concerns about economic destruction. Economic recession has its own costs in misery and lost human lives. I think a balance can be found, and I think that's a balance some politicians are struggling to find. Ultimately, it's a balance that yields no gains and only pain. I don't know what other countries have done, but in the US there was one path that could have led to economic relief: Massive government spending, far beyond the relatively paltry two trillion dollars allocated by the federal government thus far. The US Congress (and I include both parties in this, though the GOP has been more recalcitrant) has utterly failed in this regard.