"They make some good points: >First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully

"They make some good points: >First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully low for a long time and typically reserved for the severely ill. Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors." Those are NOT good points. Those are lousy points. The article strains credulity at every logical assumption required to reach their final guestimate. Each assumption is deliberately taken to arrive at a comically low number for CFR and a comically high number for how many have already been infected AND recovered. Moreover, the author is NOT even qualified enough to understand that he is not qualified to offer an informed opinion on this matter.