constitutes a solid recommendation. He repeats the line about wanting better data - which does not add anything to this discussion that wasn't already a well-known consideration. *Everybody* knows that we don't have good data. *Everybody* wishes we could have better data.

And then he says the virus pandemic *might* not be as bad as advertised, and the potential economic ramifications *could* end up being worse. None of that is a recommendation, by any definition of the word - and especially not by the strict scientific definition.

To be clear, I'm not saying that he's wrong - just that his commentary hasn't added anything to the discussion that we didn't already know. And in that context, the lack of specific recommendations in his article make it almost worthless.