First, they show graphics of seroprevalence in different locations as if they are accurate estimates of the population exposed. There are 7 locations in the main figure. I might have missed something but I have not seen a paper of any kind for any of the studies. None.
Given possible biases in serosurveys the results could be off by sizeable amounts (e.g. 2x). Again, biases aren't going to change conclusion that we're far from herd immunity, but showing seroprev # as if they are from an unbiased published study when they aren't isn't helpful.
Error #1: Article says infection fatality rate of flu is 0.1-0.2% with no source. That is much higher than estimates I've seen. This thread w/ refs suggests flu IFR: 0.02-0.05%, or 2-10x lower than NY Times article. Perhaps they mean the CFR?
This is not helpful given the huge controversy over IFRs, and confusion b/w IFR and CFR:
You can do better @nytimes.
You can follow @DiseaseEcology.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: