Not being medically skilled on this topic, I have to use my maths/stats skills to weigh up the information we have and whilst having an open mind wouldn't you agree that the stats we have would suggest a much wider degree of infection in the public would seem likely than is indicated by the anti-body testing?
We can see how quickly it can spread in a range of situations, we can be pretty sure it was here in January and perhaps pre Xmas, and such a virulent virus, that is largely asymptomatic or mild cold like symptoms, could well have been knocking about for a month or two almost unnoticed.
I can get my head around that - there's a logic to it.
There doesn't seem to be a logic behind such a virulent virus only having got to 5-7% of the population. I can't look at the stats and work back to a way that this might have come about, because it would indicate that it wasn't so infectious if that was the case.