This issue (the issue of reopening) is not actually that much of a health discussion. It's a discussion about tradeoffs of a horrific deadly shutdown vs a horrific deadly disease. Health experts can help determine R0 and Rt and IFR, but they can't make these tradeoffs for us, it's ultimately a question for society.
We have to change the conversation from yelling at each other to debating the real details.
Pointing out that you don't know the source is not an ad hominem, because you are apparently offering yourself as an expert as to what a good plan is here. You also don't appear to know the difference between medicine and public health. The latter, of course, is very much about the tradeoffs between medical and other societal factors.
So I'll ask again: given that you are presenting your opinions as more pertinent than the experts here, what's the expertise you're basing that on?
Sorry, but what's your expertise in what real public health plans look like? And why are you criticizing a slide deck as if it were a carefully considered public health plan?
If you want to talk about what you'd like to see, great. We all want things, and communications can always be better. But I don't understand why you're treating your preferences as overriding, especially when you don't even know who the author is. (Hint: it's not a he.)