I think his concept is right - just the speed limit is not - it depends on how highly populated an area is - and to be honest - not sure if they all get the optimal speed limit right.
But the idea is - yes in anything there is unfortunately death. You try to make decisions based on what is best overall and will create as minimal deaths as possible while still trying to live freely.
We could close everything in the US to try to bring COVID-19 deaths to zero, but does that really make sense? How many would die of hunger if they can't get to the store? Even with current shut downs - there is discussions of impacts to people losing jobs and their small businesses - it is harder to quantify the impact of increased deaths as a result to this but they can include - increased suicide, increased drug and alcohol abuse, spouse and child abuse, not going to the doctor when sick - resulting in something curable that could be prevented, mental health issues.
there is a so-called break even point where you can try to determine what should be closed, how many people should be at an event, what precautions should be taken when going out in public, etc. Which situation(s) will likely cause more deaths?
These are not easy to determine and this is why I think the government/states are trying to slowly ease into opening things up. To me that is the better way - do so slowly and with clear guidelines to minimize amounts of people in one place together. Then you can see the results and determine what else makes sense to open.
This should be more logical and common sense - not political - which I frankly am seeing too much of - is it just too unfortunate that it seems those state and federal government making decisions seemed more politically based than common sense. You can see some states being way too free and others being way to restrictive.