Actually, not exactly. The antibody tests, everywhere from NYC to California to Germany to Italy, is showing that unreported infections may be 80x as high as reported infections.
In fact, entire homeless shelters have been tested with about a third being infected, and zero showing symptoms.
What this means is that COVID19 is significantly less dangerous than we originally thought.
1 in 5 NYCers have antibodies; and this was sampled a week ago. Given how fast COVID spreads, it could be 1 in 4 now. This means that if we flatten the curve enough, we could possibly see ~3x the deaths (to reach a 80% infected rate) and reach herd immunity.
Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no.
We absolutely cannot be in lockdown till a vaccine is found, we cannot stay at home for 18 months or we will witness decades of economic devastation for 7.5 billion people on the planet (given how connected the world is); not to mention all the mental health harm; as well as physical health harm (deferral of non-essential but still highly important surgeries like hip replacements; less preventative check ups from people going to doctors; etc).
There are trade-offs to be made: we have cars despite the fact that they kill. We allow cigarettes despite the fact that they kill. We allow alcohol despite the fact that they kill.
For anyone who this message resonates to, please join us on /r/LockdownSkepticism. We're about using logic and data discuss what the best course of action is for society as a whole.