You understand the case mortality rate is not the only measure of the impact of the virus, right?
And even that, which is a poor measure of the public health (and economic) impact of any disease, is significantly lower than it otherwise would be due the measures taken, however flawed, to reduce the rate of transmission and thus the case rate?
Also, I think it is important to point out that public health is *not* separate from the economy. They are irrevocably intertwined.
Allowing the virus to run rampant, with little-to-no mitigation would have caused economic destruction, as well.
There is plenty of current and historical evidence to show this to be true. As well as strong evidence that communities that took immediate, drastic, but science-based action to reduce transmission of diseases and mitigate economic impact recovered much faster than communities that took little-to-no action to reduce impacts to public health for fear of the economic impacts.