> It will also show an undercount of at least an order of magnitude. It seems pretty likely that the data will come out showing at least 10%, so it's literally

> It will also show an undercount of at least an order of magnitude. It seems pretty likely that the data will come out showing at least 10%, so it's literally impossible for it to undercount by an order of magnitude. How do you think a random sample of inhabitants would be off by a whole order of magnitude, anyway? Can you explain the mechanism whereby that might happen? The only thing that comes to mind would be using a worthless test with a 90+% false negative rate.