I’m afraid I have to disagree with all your points in the strongest possible terms :)
The idea that “the sick and the old” would not as a whole impact the economy if they went missing because “most of them are not currently producing anything” is nonsense. The sick and the old are not some economically inert material that we can just dispense with; they are workers, business owners, investors, and consumers.
Many people in good health are also laid low by the virus (either through a bad bout at home, a hospital stay, or death) for reasons we don’t yet understand. It’s not like the “young and healthy” portion of the economy would get through the pandemic free of impact.
Waiting for a vaccine is not ridiculous, but nor does the entire strategy hinge upon it. Of course there’s no vaccine for COVID-19 yet because the disease only emerged at the end of 2019; that’s nothing to do with difficulty. The economic incentives for a safe and effective vaccine are now astronomical, and many candidates are now in development. We are also doing clinical trials for potential treatments that are already approved for medical use, so that could change the dynamics in our favour relatively quickly.
The policy moves to keep r0 below 1 are a bridge to a better world; they are an entirely rational strategy if you care about people and the economy they create together.
As for the claim that recessions cause an upturn in deaths, this is not supported by research of previous recessions. It sounds plausible, but it’s not true: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 There are many reasons for us to want to avoid recessions, but mortality is not one of them.