That dataset is super useful and interesting, but it has a huge caveat, assuming we're talking about the same dataset (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregi

That dataset is super useful and interesting, but it has a huge caveat, assuming we're talking about the same dataset (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/new-york-city-antibody-test.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/new-york-city-an...). Oh, I see where the 68% comes from - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-antibodies.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-... That's from one clinic, for people seeking an antibody test. Anyway, the first link I mention is the broader dataset from all the clinics like this, so it helps smooth out anomalies. But, the big caveat in all of this is that these suffer from selection bias - it's not a randomized sampling of people in each borough. It's still useful data, but it's far from being able to tell one the incidence rate to a reasonable degree of precision. Still, many reasonable inferences one can make.