I agree that testing project is providing valuable information. A few of the tests were indeed quite bad; but I take that as a reason to look carefully at the p

I agree that testing project is providing valuable information. A few of the tests were indeed quite bad; but I take that as a reason to look carefully at the particular test used, not to dismiss the whole field. 6/9 of their lateral flow assays were >98% specific for IgG. Of course, the bottom of the confidence interval is lower; but the top is higher, and I don't see what would make the low side more likely than the high side. This is unlike e.g. a typical drug study, where your prior should be strongly biased to the drug not working, since most drugs don't. Perhaps your prior is biased here; but I don't see why, since the serology is roughly consistent with the Diamond Princess and other prior results (like per Verity). NYC appears to have used an in-house IgG assay for which unfortunately no paper exists; but the Wadsworth Center seems reputable, with no obvious incentive to overstate the prevalence. To any extent they're under political pressure, that would probably go the other way (to show the success of the lockdown, and justify its continued effect). So perhaps they made a simple mistake, but their IFR ends up consistent with serology performed by other means in Europe, and with the few populations universally tested by PCR--actually on the high end, especially if we include probables or use full excess death. The harm of the coronavirus certainly shouldn't be minimized. The harm of the continuing lockdown shouldn't be either--a generation of schoolchildren may lose months of public education, one of very few social equalizers in American society. Given the harm on both sides, I believe we should be making policy based on our best estimates of the IFR, and not either extreme of a confidence interval. That seems unquestionably <2% to me, and probably <1% based on European serology (though the NYC may be slightly higher).