Mentioned this in another thread (link below). Distilling some thoughts from reading the early June version into a short list of points:
1) Circular reasoning
2) Extreme counterfactual scenario
3) Sweden
1/n
imperial.ac.uk/news/198074/lo…
1) Circular reasoning: Assumes what would have happened without the interventions (see next point) and that interventions prevented it from happening.
2) Extreme counterfactual scenario: i.e. what might have happened if not for interventions. Assumes exponential growth (incorrect, as many point out), all susceptible & (if I recall correctly) possibly an even higher Infection Fatality Rate than used in the March paper.
3) Sweden: Explained away, it seems to me. Paper claims lockdown did almost all the work everywhere else. Yet in Sweden - no lockdown - ‘banning public events’ achieved that, even though that intervention had negligible effect everywhere else.
(Notes: These thoughts are partly from memory from >1 month ago. Any errors or omissions my own. Have not seen any updated versions of the paper.)
...end.