Carl Hennigan

And the only way to do this is through antibody testing.

And here's another error we're making.

It seems like we're saying we can't do the antibody testing until we've got 3 million highly accurate tests.

But you could do some random samples in populations like Brighton where it started.

I've had emails from people in Brighton telling me all the time that there's more people with the disease than was first thought in schools, all sorts of areas.

You could do a random sample of those people, a thousand.

In Germany, in one town where they thought they had 2% of cases, when they did that random sampling, their estimate went up to 15% of people had the disease, which dramatically lowered the infection fatality rate to about 0.3%.

Yeah, and I've had people say, well, they're in hospital, surely they're more at risk.

But I'm like, hold on a minute, pregnant women are those who are on the at-risk register, so should be more likely to be isolating.

So, and remembering the antibodies in the German study take quite a bit of time to come through.

So there could have been some of them women who might have already had the disease.

So they're not testing positive at the time as well.

So there is a possibility here that in particularly in densely populated areas, the proportion of infection is way up higher than what people have thought.

And if you look at the cabinet now in government, 20% of the cabinet have had this disease.

It is not implausible to suggest 20 to 30% of people

in densely populated areas and cities, may have had this infection.

In areas that are not densely populated, it could be virtually zero.

And if you look at somewhere like America, that's a good example of what's going on.

If you go to New York, Chicago, San Francisco, it's having a huge impact.

You go into the Midwest, in the states in the middle, they're like, what's going on?