It’s beyond belief that any strategy could even be considered that does not have its primary goal to save as many lives as possible.

Containment attempts that.

“Herd immunity” is an experiment that the UK government is going to carry out on its citizens causing massive loss of life for no good reason at all.

To be brutally cold: the goal is almost never to save as many lives as possible. Even hospitals don't use that goal. We estimate the economic value of life and use quality adjusted life years to determine if a potentially life saving treatment is worth paying for.

We make these decisions constantly. You make these decisions every time you leave the house. People die every day from things we could have prevented if we had the inclination.

If the goal is to save as many lives as possible, why are driving and alcohol permitted? Because of personal freedom and the economy.

Treating this pandemic differently would be emotion driven.

Maybe because the scientific advice may be ambiguous and leave room for interpretation which the politicians must exercise under the best of circumstances.

My reading of the letter is that it challenges the scientific advice, as it has been communicated in the media, and seeks to clarify the "wiggle space" politicians have to work with.

Scientific advice shouldn't be ambiguous.

...ever used a weather forecast?

They didn't ask two questions if I read the article correctly.

They asked for two specific actions: more social distancing and releasing modelling data behind decisions.

There you go. So unclear communication I got it wrong.

WHO did the same thing with their oblique, opaque and 'without naming names' bulletins of urgency. Politics at a time like this is a very, very bad idea.