Obviously, he was way off on the estimated number of deaths. But beyond that, he seems to believe that COVID-19 is exactly the same clinical entity as the seasonal influenza - which it clearly isn't. A study published in the infectious disease section of Lancet - which, as you probably know, is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world - concluded that "Even for those aged 20–29 years, once infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is 33 times higher than that from seasonal influenza." COVID-19 is absolutely killing young, healthy people. Period. Hard stop.

So the argument that COVID-19 is pretty much harmless and we should just let it run wild in people under age 60 is obviously bogus. And the idea of a "selective quarantine" is also bogus. The virus is clearly infecting old people even during our current hard-core lockdown of everyone - there is no question it would spread to more old people if there were no restrictions on the movement of younger people.

And, combining those two concerns, we come to the conclusion that we would indeed crush the healthcare sector with so many people getting infected in such a short amount of time. And with millions of people critically ill all at the same time, and decimated healthcare resources, we would ultimately face the enormous economic consequences that we are trying to avoid in the first place.

He is correct that herd immunity would eventually settle it, but this pandemic isn't gonna last forever, either way. And the consequences of his approach are clearly absolutely terrible - and even worse, going through that hellish nightmare for 4 weeks (as he suggests) probably wouldn't spare us much of the negative economic suffering anyways.

In summary, both theories are feasible, to some extent - but his theory is much worse than the one that is almost universally agreed upon by all medical and public health experts.