Purely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide co

Purely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide confidence interval that tells you (maybe) what rate of undiscovered infection you might expect to see if you sampled lots of farm workers. > "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through". Thankfully, the article tells you that human-to-human transmission isn't a concern, so there's no need to speculate.