Yes, from the Diamond Princess wiki page: > As of 16 March, at least 712 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew had tested positive for the virus.[22][23] As of

Yes, from the Diamond Princess wiki page: > As of 16 March, at least 712 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew had tested positive for the virus.[22][23] As of 14 April, fourteen of those who were on board had died from the disease. Exposure on the Princess was 100%, which we know because everyone was confined to quarters yet cases appeared randomly throughout the ship without there being any locational clustering, which is only possible if the virus got everywhere. IOW it was capable of spreading between cabins and floors. So the rate at which passengers went positive was something like ~20%, but half of those were asymptomatic, so the true susceptibility rate was more like 10%. IIRC contact tracing studies found a similar susceptibility rate, based on how many people started testing positive when locked into their homes with a test-positive housemate. But I don't have a citation for that offhand, I'd have to go dig it up again. IFR was in that case 1.9%, but this is biased high due to the age of the passengers which is very unrepresentative of the population. You could get more accurate IFRs using serosurveys. Obviously, the modelling projections were all wrong by an order of magnitude just due to ignoring susceptibility alone. And then you have the IFR that was also way too high. Fix both of those and you can start to explain why the epidemiologist's predictions were so far off the real numbers. Also their models assumed very strongly that SARS-CoV-2 could not move long distances on air currents, but indeed that's not compatible with what happened on the ship. If you take all those factors into account then lockdowns did not make any sense as a policy (nor many other policies).