MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED
There are two papers (neither peer-reviewed or in print) circulating--by legitimate researchers, I should add--speculating based on various assumptions and models that, in fact, huge numbers are already infected with the new coronavirus, but have no symptoms or such mild symptoms as to never get tested. (Here's a journalistic account of one of them.) The theory, then, is that we are closer to "herd immunity" than we realize, and the fatality rate is much, much lower than previously claimed, maybe even as low as seasonal flu. Both papers make some dubious assumptions based on my amateur reading, so I am waiting to see some more expert assesments and analyses before posting links (thanks to those who have sent them, I appreciate being kept abreast of these things). Still, it is plainly true that the "confirmed" cases just about everywhere represent only some fraction of the number of actual cases, but we don't know what that fraction is: 1/10? 1/5? 1/50? Even if that is true, it's clear that the proportion of confirmed cases requiring hospitalization and ICU treatment is significant (e.g., 10-20% requiring hospitalization, 3-8% requiring ICU), and that's still enough to generate a healthcare crisis. In any case, I'll keep my eyes open for better-informed assessments and post more when I learn more.
UPDATE: This Twitter thread (noted by Professor Gressis in the comments) has some illuminating comments from some actual experts.
MARCH 26 UPDATE: This is a very helpful analysis and explanation of the Oxford study that made (misleading) headlines. (Thanks to John Dupre for the pointer.)
