It seems to me the author would only be satisfied with retrospective population serology tests (which determine if individuals in the population have ever been infected with SARS-CoV-2), as opposed to RT-PCR, which gives you a single time point as to whether the individual in question currently has viral RNA in their respiratory track. Serology tests seem like they take longer to develop, and population studies take even longer (at least, I haven’t seen those kinds of studies coming out of China yet, correct me if I’m wrong). So it sounds like the author wants a wait-and-see approach, which seems like it turned out horribly for Italy. So I’m not buying his argument yet. Are there any flaws in my thinking?
"The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300."
He infers that the true case fatality rate has a very broad range, but lower than what was announced by WHO:
"the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%)
