I think if there’s no chance of “natural” herd immunity as the author suggests, there’s little chance of “artificial” herd immunity.
But really, it is anecdotal. These could be testing errors or there could be certain people who don’t develop immunity while most do.
You could rephrase all of this as “I’ll appoint a blue-ribbon commission to gather the necessary data on how we can have our cake and eat it too.” Who is going to lead this effort? How long will it take? How far is the disease going to spread before the cake-eating committee has enough data to proceed and settles on a course of action?
In principle, I am not against adaptable metrics-driven action plan. How could anyone be against such a reasonable thing? Let’s see what happens when we present it to the yahoos who think that mask-wearing will make their dicks fall off.
Well on this board it wasn’t those arguing against wearing face coverings who were against “such a reasonable thing” when the COVID-19 task force presented its adaptable metrics-driven action plan of “Opening America.” Of course many didn’t read it. All they needed to know was that Trump said he endorsed it (pretty sure he had also not read it or understood it) and that was enough to know that such an approach was wrong wrong wrong and better to have each governor decide what was best without even considering what gates and what order the Task Force advised.
Trying to analyze what the actual long term net costs and consequences of each possible mitigation action might be? Horrific to even consider that there were any as soon as Trump claimed the cure might be worse than the disease. Need no more information. Trump says something and therefore the polar opposite is proven true. No need to actually study the issue as a high priority item.