It is a good article as regards the explanation of herd immunity. Whether it works or is justified is another matter.
1. He does point out that it is high risk and involves the country having the right resources in the right place and at the right time to manage the fall out ( I.e deaths) from approx 40M infections ( 60% of the population as per the Govt). Very difficult to 'manage' this situation with inadequate, underfunded and stretched resources and so many unknowns.
2. If you're going along a high risk path which is different from every other country you need to be honest with and take people along with you something the Govt can't or won't do. A good example is the banning of major sporting events. Under the herd theory you actually want these events to take place so that people can infect one another ( same with keeping schools open so that kids can spread the infection around). You then of course need to retain the option to stop these events or close schools when you want to subsequently slow down the rate of infection at a later point in the cycle. But the Govt, didn't say that in the presser on Thursday , they defended allowing these events to proceed with the ludicrous argument they were low risk which fooled no one, puzzled most ordinary punters and and led to the Govt being seen as con artists and at the same time casting doubt on their honesty and the whole policy.
3. The problem with this behavioural theory is of course people might not behave the way the model predicts. Again the banning of football games where the herd theory says proceed but the Premier League stepped in with a ban.
4. After having read this article, it's worth checking out alternative theories which dismiss the herd theory as bollocks.
