Personally, I think that Professor Medley has chosen to highlight the situation in a way that is almost guaranteed to create a debate. As several here have explained, a characteristic of this epidemic is that the rate of increase (and decrease) in infections is determined by the number of persons that each infected individual passes it on to, (the 'R' figure). However that figure is generated and might be subjected to local inaccuracies, the global (as in national) figure can be derived from the infection rate. As has also been explained, the social activities permitted and the behaviour of people when engaged in those activites are the major driver in the progress of the epidemic. The more activities allowed, the more likely they will facilitate the spread, even if every citizen follows the recommendations religiously. So by releasing all children to attend school, full time - a worthy aim given all the expert advice that children and their parents/guardians are facing long-term difficulties, the government is tipping more infection opportunities into the public domain. If the infection rate does start on a trajectory that could cause a runaway increase of cases, the government is duty bound to do something about it.
That is where the debate now rests, i.e., where to look first. Professor Medley has judiciously chosen two freedoms that would probably each have a different impact if curtailed. Their impacts probably have quite different demographic defenders. So far, nobody here has attempted to engage on that debate, many preferring to make ad hominem attacks on the professor or other experts that would probably be involved in that debate at government level.
