Yes but the difference in fatalities is so large that it would imply majority of New Yorkers were infected and the city has achieved herd immunity. It’s not implausible just find it hard to believe.
It's hard to believe, I would think, because it would be such a remarkably positive development.
But just from a logical perspective it follows clearly from this data, and there's nothing fundamental about the situation that makes it particularly unlikely.
Of course it's quite possible that the LA data isn't really applicable for any number of reasons. But the idea that COVID will run through dense populations mercilessly, but quickly, and then sort of peter out is completely within the range of possible and non-shocking outcomes.
It's the natural outcome of an extremely communicable disease with a large prevalence of asymptomatic transmission and there's plenty of corroborating evidence for the idea that this is one of those.
It's also quite likely that the false-positive rate with this test is super high. Who knows.
If 50% of NYC has had the virus, they won't have herd immunity yet -- of these studies are correct, then the virus is horrendously infectious -- making 90%+ of population required for immunity.
