Well, they are both in agreement that we need to reach herd immunity at minimal cost. They also agree to keep the rate of new infections below NHS's capacity to

Well, they are both in agreement that we need to reach herd immunity at minimal cost. They also agree to keep the rate of new infections below NHS's capacity to handle. They disagree on: - adherence to lockdown measures over a longer time - actual rate of spreading the disease I agree with John Edmunds on these two points, however I am frankly disappointed a third approach is absent from the debate which is to lockdown aggressively now and deliberately infect healthy-age adults to achieve herd-immunity in the healthiest (most active) population. These types of organized "corona parties" if you will could be medically supervised and coordinated with the NHS's ability. In that case you have controlled (accelerated) spread with 0 viral coefficient and uncontrolled general population spread with a viral coefficient. That said, it would only be ethical if the government believes it could manage the capacity of the NHS. I think more realistically it's a foregone conclusion that the country health systems will be overrun and that drastic lockdown measures only make sense for a few weeks to make sure herd immunity comes at effectively half the cost in human lives. If they don't believe they can manage the NHS capacity then the UK governments' policy is by all means the most human and economically effective way to manage it