Human tragedy, or natural culling of the sick and weak, survival of the fittest?
The question isn't phrased well, but you seem to be asking how the acceptance of mainstream science would educate our response to a pandemic.
I'll set aside the implicit moral questions of the relative value of human life to economic considerations, as those are not within the realm of evolution.
As for how science would shape our approach to getting through the pandemic with minimal mortality/morbidity, epidemiology would have a bigger impact. We'd focus on reducing transmission (R0) and death rate (CFR). Towards that end, testing, contact tracing, social distancing, wearing masks, etc are all aimed primarily at reducing transmission. Resource sharing across states (and preferably internationally) could also help reduce the death rate.
As far as a final resolution to the crisis, there's 4 possible ways that could go:
1. Infection rates remain high until Herd immunity is reached, allowing the virus to subside on it's own
2. a vaccine is developed, allowing us to move towards herd immunity without as many people becoming sick
3. Transmission rates can be lowered such that the virus dies out without a herd immunity threashhold being reached (Drop R0 below 1)
4. All other options fail and virus becomes endemic.
Out of these, #1 and #4 are really bad options because a lot of people get sick under them. The best would be #3, but that is also going to be VERY difficult to pull off. Luckily, even if we can't actually eliminate the virus this way, efforts in this direction also "flatten the curve" helping prevent our exceeding treatment capacity. Also, it allows more time to develop a vaccine before more people get sick.
If we are looking ONLY at how evolution would impact these, we should prepare for the possibility that the virus may mutate too rapidly for the full eradication of the virus. We would likely still benefit from a vaccine even so, much like we can't eradicate influenza, but through vaccination, we can reduce annual deaths.