@hankreardon & @madamswerSad to see two of the few HC posters...

@hankreardon & @madamswer

Sad to see two of the few HC posters that I respect, getting somewhat acrimonious. This is the problem with debates in the 'virtual world', it's easy tolose site of the human on the other side (and yes, I'm as guilty as anyone).

I suggest imagining you're at a pub (or bar, for the more urbane sophisticates) - I'm sure in this 'real' setting you've both had many vigorous and lively debates/disagreements, that never ended in permanent animosity. In fact, vigorous disagreement is one of the joys of life! Though it is rather more enjoyable with a beer or a wine.

To the matter at hand, I too had been thinking along the lines that the rate of infection is probably far greater than what has been recorded (due to a lack of testing, and a bias in the testing). However @hankreardon makes the excellent point that 98% of the tests are negative. I still suspect some bias, but am now rather unsure as to how significant this bias might be (certainly in Australia). If there is a bias in those being tested to those that are already symptomatic and/or to those that are at high risk (diabetes, hypertension etc), then, in agreement with @madamswer, those that test positive (2%) would still be subject to this bias. No? But on the other hand, in agreement with @hankreardon, this would suggest that the infection rate is not high throughout society (no higher than about 2%).

Vive la difference!