Edit. I see that you were probably responding to "Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?", in which case yes you make a valid point. However it still holds that this paper was from 2006, we're in a much better position today in many places to accomplish work remotely. Many assumptions are in fact not met. I'll keep my original comment as is below:
It is immaterial that D. A. co-authored that back in 2006. It was a different time, and the measures that he is professing against have _demonstrably_ proven to be effective.
The paper gives suggestions based on many assumptions that don't hold considering the implemented rules. But they're just suggestions. Offering this paper in the face of demonstrable evidence that these measures do in fact work seems a little irrational in my perspective.
Why is simply being effective the bar for lockdowns? Lots of things are effective that aren't used because we understand that there are tradeoffs and other policies can bring similar effectiveness with less side effects. as the saying goes: "Any idiot can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that is just strong enough to stand given the weight it's meant to bear."
It is immaterial that D. A. co-authored that back in 2006. It was a different time, and the measures that he is professing against have _demonstrably_ proven to be effective.
The paper gives suggestions based on many assumptions that don't hold considering the implemented rules. But they're just suggestions. Offering this paper in the face of demonstrable evidence that these measures do in fact work seems a little irrational in my perspective.