That estimate wasn't particularly well-received, and the facts on the ground make it look especially dubious. NYC has has 17k deaths, for instance, mostly in April and early May. If you assume that _everyone_ in NYC has been infected, that would be an IFR of 0.2%. An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously) would indicate a rate of about 0.8%.
Of course not, any estimate of this number is going to be controversial because it implies that someone messed up. The "reception" from one side in an ongoing debate means precisely nothing to me.
> An antibody survey in late April found a prevalence of about 25% in New York City, which, assuming it's accurate (huge assumption, obviously)
Yes, fairly big assumption. I wonder if the seropositive numbers have changed since then?
> NYC has...
NYC has/had a lot of uncommon things that you don't mention:
- Filthy subway system with horrible ventilation that is used by almost everyone many times a week.
- Large proportion of residents living in apartment buildings with shared HVAC.
- Public health protocols which were extremely quick to hospitalize and then intubate patients (even those without positive PCR tests).
- A directive from the state government which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients.