We’ve tested more than their entire population x 3. Besides how many people travel to and from Iceland? Of course they are going to have few cases.
This data will help model the disease. From this data, multiplying hospitalized cases by 40 gives a rough estimate of the true number of infections. Half of those having no idea, just walking around shedding viral load.
The point is the percentages. What they are seeing is a vastly larger denominator WHEN YOU TEST PEOPLE WITHOUT SYMPTOMS! They have tested roughly 5% of their entire population. Over 6% of those tested already have it - and yet only 2.5% of those cases are sick enough to need hospitalization. That suggests the virus is not nearly as deadly as we think.
If I’m missing something, I’ll love to hear why this is not good news. If half of the people have no symptoms at all, then our denominator for calculating death rates would cut our death rate in half - because we only test the half showing symptoms.
Greenland isn’t exactly a major tourist destination, but even they managed to find 10 cases.
Perhaps Bjork is protecting Iceland with her voice (See also “Puberty Love” in Attack of the Killer Tomatoes)
So don't discount stats coming out of Iceland on that account. I don't vouch for these numbers but don't see anything wrong with them either.
random testing is a good idea -- it is just hard to organize and justify in the midst of a rush of real cases.
Iceland’s total population is about the same as Atlanta city. Easy to test if you don’t have all that many people. Just give the virus some hakarl - that will get rid of anything