Is this article for real? Is this supposed to “debunk” statistics? From above: “Erickson confuses test positivity rates (i.e., the percentage of positive PCR tests among a group of people who were actually able to get tested for COVID-19) with community attack rates (i.e., the percentage of people in a whole population who have had COVID-19).” Test positivity rate is how science determines the fatality of a disease by comparing those who died with a positive virus test with those who carry the virus. Does your supposedly scientific “Community Attack Rate” even require a positive blood test for Covid-19? Lemme guess. It’s based on symptoms. Conveniently, these symptoms correspond with influenza A or B, the largest infectious disease killer in 1st world nations. Does your Community Attack Rate” exclude comorbidities like influenza by testing for these upon death, even when victim has Covid symptoms? Lemme guess, too busy for that. Well that my friend isn’t science. It’s not statistics based on a population who at any given time carries several potentially lethal infectious diseases with Covid-19 like symptoms. Erickson extrapolates the percentage tested positive for Covid-19 with those who have died of Covid-19 and then extrapolates this on to CA’s total population. There is nothing unscientific about this, unless the Covid-19 test is not reliable? We know that everyone will never be tested. We could also look at different patient groups to narrow down those most susceptible based on social habits, lifestyles, and comorbidities. This is science. Of course, medical personnel are NOT being required to test for influenza A or B, nor document comorbidities.