But it's probably far more than just cancer patients.
I can easily believe those numbers for cancer patients. We could also add all the category A vulnerable onto that list, eg transplant patients, immunosuppressed and so on. The immunosuppressed is a very wide range of people, many hopping about seeming perfectly healthy. If treated, immunosuppression could be removed, eg a successful heart transplant including after care.
The point I am repeatedly trying to make is that unless and until the virus is controlled, such patients cannot effectively be treated in hospital environments due to the danger of infection and thus death. Think care homes on a bigger scale. As a result, control of the virus becomes a priority to help all and specifically the most vulnerable. I hope you understand what I am saying.
When I say balance, I mean exactly what you said but with the addendum of ALL lives lost, given that control of the virus predicates outcomes for vulnerable patients in the same way as control of MRSA. We have protocols for the latter but not the former.
At present, the virus is partially controlled and the economy is opening up. It all depends on the willingness of people to comply. This is a problem. The balance is weighing the economy against death. At the moment, I think we have it about right.
The alternative is to fully open the economy and write off category A vulnerable , then cat B and C. Cat C would be people with a HbA1c over 76. Probably half of ARRSE. Thus lies the way to herd immunity.