I think the use of the word 'cull', as the author has admitted, was perhaps somewhat crass, but as he was writing as an economist there is a stark reality to what he said. I'm also not sure from the article whether the author took into account the economic benefits of the older age population in his reckonings, which I think is the point that M0nica was making.
The article linked by Baggs was very similar to others I've read and the point was well made that adults who stand to get seriously ill if infected by schoolchildren must be well protected—through surveillance and medical support.
The author also goes on to say, and this holds true also for the UK: But, and it’s a fundamentally important but, in the United States, this plan demands a wholesale shoring-up of our medical-care system. It cannot be the case that the poor, the undocumented, or the otherwise uninsured are unable to get testing, treatment, and care if they are sick with COVID-19. It cannot be the case that that affording care to the ill becomes grounds for their apprehension by ICE. And not only on humanitarian grounds (although those should be sufficient), also because if the medical system can’t take care of everybody, it will allow the outbreak to progress. That’s the thing with contagion: unless you protect everybody, you’ve protected nobody.
Now,