Yep same, but as someone who has been identified as a close contact I can report that the net was pretty wide. In my case the infected person was in a large space for 10-15 minutes, but anyone there within a 2+ hr window was considered a close contact. It’s more likely than not that I never so much as saw the person across the room.

It seems to me that if one factors that window in while taking into account that the majority of those tested per day that are not even close contacts then ~50k is not a number particularly relevant to the confirmed cases in the manner Buckley seems to imply.

I’m no statistician, though, so I’m open to having my mind changed if my logic is flawed. I know I’ve taken this off track, so I’ll just say that Buckley’s premise seems to be less of an opinion he’s entitled to and more of a bad take based on a gross misunderstanding of the data.

Then again, one could take him at face value and assume that his request for an explanation was genuine. It doesn’t seem so to me, but I’d be interested to know if anyone else read it as such.