Covid-19: the principle of proportionality is not respected?

To what extent is it permissible to provoke an economic crisis, the extent, and effects of which we know quite a lot about, if in return the “bad†to be limited is not known in its extent? Which restriction of fundamental rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and democracy) may be used to reduce a group’s mortality risk? Are measures permissible if a similarly safe state could be achieved for a few (risk group) with less restrictive measures? Do we want to take such risks if we do not know where this path leads and therefore prevent further spread of the virus at all costs? Co-morbidity greatly explains the high lethality of covid-19 among older people. Can a large part of society and the healthy world population be exposed to a risk of (starvation) death and social disruption, so that a small, known risk group can extend its remaining life, already marked by morbid conditions, by a few months? In the following we will go through these questions and will conclude that, even though we do not know much, to the current state of knowledge the strict quarantine measures applied in most countries in the world seem to not meet the principle of proportionality.