I guess it depends on one's definition of "overreact to the COVID-19 pandemic." Is trying to save as many lives as possible overreacting? Is wanting to wait to see what actually happens in countries that are practicing herd immunity overreacting? Is it overreacting to want to wait to see (through scienticially sound evidence, not merely anecdotal) if people who contracted and were hospitalized for coronavirus are actually immune, or if there's the possiblity that herd immunity is pointless because there are cases of people contracting the virus a second time.
So far there's no proof as of yet that herd immunity is an effective strategy, unless one is looking for a higher than average mortality rate compared to countries that aren't using herd immunity as a strategy. If there's proof, I'd like to see mention of it from a reliable, independent source, like Johns Hopkins, for instance.
The U.K. tried herd immunity. Didn't work and they abandoned it. Too late it looks like. Even the Prime Minister contracted coronavirus. Not something that gives citizens confidence in their government's ability to handle coronavirus or anything else if they have to be concerned that the leadership is not protected.
There have been examples of people getting coronavirus, recovering, testing negative, and then testing postive again.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKCN2240HI
Sweden also has an entirely different system than Peru. Read that article from the OP and it was interesting to see a conservative publication talk up a country that practices Democratic Socialism. Sweden's system means that they have a far better health care system than Peru. Sweden has about the same amount of intensive care beds but with 1/3'rd the population. Sweden's Democratic Socialist system is already setup to get aid and benefits directly to it's citizens. I've read how the Swedes are very respectful of following their government's recommendations. I haven't seen that same respect here in Peru. Take a look at the level of respect for traffic laws and regulations as an example. If the strategy was to go for herd immunity I don't see Peruanas following the suggestion to continue practicing social distancing (as the Swedish govt. suggests). The two countries are just too different to make the case that what works in Sweden would work in Peru.
There's also cultural differences. I haven't heard on the radio or seen on the television any suggestions by experts or proof of desire of the citizens to follow a herd immunity strategy. Nobody wants to put grandma and grandpa at risk. Even in a country like the US where news reports are showing protests from a vocal minority of people wanting to practice herd immunity, a poll yesterday shows that 70 percent of respondents believe the country’s top priority should be to “try to slow the spread of coronavirus by keeping people home and social distancing, even if the economy is hurt in the short term.”https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/2 ... ork-203427
Last I read, Vizcarra has a 95%+ rating for how he's dealing with coronavirus. I don't see the political desire or desire among the people to switch to a herd immunity strategy.
Of course that's today. Who can say what the feeling will be in the future if this current path continues. But for now, it looks like people aren't willing to be the guinea pigs for herd immunity experiments that may not have the desired effect and might only kill more people faster while putting a strain on the already stressed health care system which would likely cause an increase in the number of non-coronavirus related deaths as well.
I'd prefer that Peru not be the cuy. Let Sweden be the guinea pig and Peru and other countries can learn from their experiment with the herd immunity strategy.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lock ... weeks.html