"A low number, but non-zero" isn't great information, but it's a start. Because understanding so-called "inconsequential infections" would have been very helpful at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".
Purely statistically, sure. But you haven't included sample bias -- they did a small sample of farm workers. So at best you have a point estimate with a wide confidence interval that tells you (maybe) what rate of undiscovered infection you might expect to see if you sampled lots of farm workers.
> "Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".
Thankfully, the article tells you that human-to-human transmission isn't a concern, so there's no need to speculate.
"A low number, but non-zero" isn't great information, but it's a start. Because understanding so-called "inconsequential infections" would have been very helpful at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Cases are obviously symptomatic and will seek healthcare" is a very different beast from "Some people are shedding virus but are pretty sure they can power through".