With statements like "the markets are up", and the hyperbole of "so we're saying 'we want to kill 200,000 people'" and "killing everybody", which even the anchor has to reign him in on, Mr Pueyo seems like such a douchebag. he comes of as incredibly unlikeable (at least to me). especially compared to Mr Edmunds, who goes through how herd immunity is a good end-game in a measured and calm manner. to which he seems to offer no counterpoint. they even both agree on lowering the peak, just not on how to do that/when to do it.
edit: it seems reasonable to me to suggest not impose quarantine measures too early, to not drag those measures on for longer than necessary - that just makes it more likely people will disobey it. indeed, because a vaccine is so far off, herd immunity seems like the only plan for now.
Funny thing about this is that they don't disagree on herd immunity. They argue over optimal rate and tradeoffs (where/when measures slider should be moved).
In this rare case Pueyo credentials don't matter much as he pretty much echoes open letter from scientific community coming from Italy.
What is not mentioned is that buying a bit of time also increases a chance for many people to get treatment that is yet to be discovered/approved.
absolutely, although it's a balancing act. there's also a mental health component to isolation/quarantine, and how do you measure that? it's a tough and complex call in any case, and i'm glad i don't have to make the call.
edit: it seems reasonable to me to suggest not impose quarantine measures too early, to not drag those measures on for longer than necessary - that just makes it more likely people will disobey it. indeed, because a vaccine is so far off, herd immunity seems like the only plan for now.