[M T]

For what it is worth, in New York City, the population is 8.4 million and there've been 10,000 deaths, so that pushes the lower bound of the IFR to .12%.

At a minimum, the actual NY/NYC IFR has to be at least triple that lower bound, right?  Otherwise over 1/3 of the city's population would have to be infected, and there would have to be little undercount in the deaths.  I would save 5x those estimates is a safer bet for a lower bound.
Fun with bad serology studies:
Implied IFR from the Stanford study in Santa Clara Co.: 0.12%
Implied IFR from the LA study: 0.19%
So, BC's post is reason #642 to be skeptical of those serology studies.

The revised Stanford report estimated 23K infected (95CI 14K - 35K).  That was April 3-4. 
Considering those are antibody results, they may correspond to cases shortly after symptoms show.
So, corresponding deaths would be roughly 3 weeks later (Apr 24).  That was about 99 deaths.

99/23,000 = 0.43% IFR  (0.28% - 0.71%)

For NYC proper, 8.4M * 0.43% = 36K deaths

[M T]

For what it is worth, in New York City, the population is 8.4 million and there've been 10,000 deaths, so that pushes the lower bound of the IFR to .12%.

At a minimum, the actual NY/NYC IFR has to be at least triple that lower bound, right?  Otherwise over 1/3 of the city's population would have to be infected, and there would have to be little undercount in the deaths.  I would save 5x those estimates is a safer bet for a lower bound.
Fun with bad serology studies:
Implied IFR from the Stanford study in Santa Clara Co.: 0.12%
Implied IFR from the LA study: 0.19%
So, BC's post is reason #642 to be skeptical of those serology studies.

The revised Stanford report estimated 23K infected (95CI 14K - 35K).  That was April 3-4. 
Considering those are antibody results, they may correspond to cases shortly after symptoms show.
So, corresponding deaths would be roughly 3 weeks later (Apr 24).  That was about 99 deaths.

99/23,000 = 0.43% IFR  (0.28% - 0.71%)

For NYC proper, 8.4M * 0.43% = 36K deaths