[2006alum]

I would not start taking social action based on the Stanford test. As I stated elsewhere, their estimated IFR was .12% to .2%, which would imply that with a 100% prevalence among NYC's 8.39m people, you'd expect between 10,000 and 16,700 deaths if every single person was infected. NYC already has reported nearly 12,000 deaths, so unless you think NYC's prevalence rate is near 75%, something is off with that estimate, and the low end of the range has already been proven to contradict reality. Let alone Italy, Spain, etc. 

Given that they are extrapolating from 50 positive tests out of 3,330 total tested, and do not attempt to account for bias in who would seek out a free test, I am skeptical that this is worth the attention it is getting. Here's another helpful skeptical thread on that study that show hows the math in their estimates literally defies reality:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/foxjust/status/1251202203597111298?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

I would not start taking social action based on the Stanford test. As I stated elsewhere, their estimated IFR was .12% to .2%, which would imply that with a 100% prevalence among NYC's 8.39m people, you'd expect between 10,000 and 16,700 deaths if every single person was infected. NYC already has reported nearly 12,000 deaths, so unless you think NYC's prevalence rate is near 75%, something is off with that estimate, and the low end of the range has already been proven to contradict reality. Let alone Italy, Spain, etc. 

Given that they are extrapolating from 50 positive tests out of 3,330 total tested, and do not attempt to account for bias in who would seek out a free test, I am skeptical that this is worth the attention it is getting. Here's another helpful skeptical thread on that study that show hows the math in their estimates literally defies reality:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/foxjust/status/1251202203597111298?s=20[/tweet]