Doc Freemo 
> Explain to me what it is you are getting from this that is different than what the authors repeatedly conclude.
Absolutely nothing. What I conclude is exactly the same as what the authors conclude and is exactly the same as what you have posted here.
It is you who are disagreeing with the authors and dont know it. I have explained to you three times now exactly what your misunderstanding and you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. Again this is not appropriate for a medical doctor.
I will explain to you again, in this study "the patients with COVID" are specifically explained to NOT be a random sampling of the population of people with COVID. It is **not** meant to be representative of the COVID population. It is specifically only people who have unusually bad cases and wind up hospitalized. Therefore it is only representative of hospitalized COVID infected people, it is NOT representative of COVID infected people in general.
I quote fromt he study you linked:
"The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases"
It specifically states in no uncertain terms that the higher ranges above 50% were only in the case of hospialized patients, and for non-hospitalized diagnosed people it is 10-30%.
This also implies that the non-diagnosed asymptomatic crowd, which is not in this study would be even lower, implying the overall number once those people are factored in is likely to be lower still.
But as is very cleraly stated in the metareview what you said is straight up false, no study suggests an 80% figure for all people who catch covid.
@freemo @Raccoon the analysis SPECIFICALLY states that multiple data sources were not exclusively hospitalized or severe cases. Jesus christ man, I’m arguing with a “well acshuallllly” guy from hell here.