I am not interpreting it that way, I believe in the consensus estimates. The parent commenter (articbull) thinks these serological studies (SC, LA, and to a les

I am not interpreting it that way, I believe in the consensus estimates. The parent commenter (articbull) thinks these serological studies (SC, LA, and to a lesser degree NY) prove that the IFR is much lower than we thought because the actual infection numbers are much higher. The NY study, using reasonable assumptions, looks like the IFR might be between 0.5% - 1.0%, but the SC study was claiming 0.1-0.2%. And I am arguing, in the hypothetical case that the SC study is correct (I think it is flawed), then we have under estimated R0. Considering we have been under lockdown for over a month (which greatly impacts effective transmission), and considering our estimates of latency hasn't changed dramatically, I think my above assumption is fair.