NEW TODAY
@LeaMerone and I have updated our systematic review/meta-analysis of the infection-fatality rates of COVID-19
New point-estimate is 0.64% (0.5-0.78%)
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
@LeaMerone and I have updated our systematic review/meta-analysis of the infection-fatality rates of COVID-19
New point-estimate is 0.64% (0.5-0.78%)
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Some notes: we have tried to respond to every criticism raised so far, but it's challenging to get to everything. It will be updated again!
I think it's also VERY important to recognize that this point estimate is really just a "best guess"
What we're seeing is not unexpected DIFFERENT PLACES HAVE DIFFERENT IFRs
What we're seeing is not unexpected DIFFERENT PLACES HAVE DIFFERENT IFRs
So, for example, Spain's very large serology study showed an IFR of 1-1.3%
The Czech Republic had an impressive study that found closer to 0.6%
In Wuhan, it appears to have been 0.35%
THESE ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS
The Czech Republic had an impressive study that found closer to 0.6%
In Wuhan, it appears to have been 0.35%
THESE ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS
Indeed, we argue that IFR is likely to vary by demographics and features of the healthcare system
This being said, if you are going to use a single number (because everyone loves single numbers) the point-estimate is probably a reasonable one to use
There are some big caveats to the new estimate - in particular some thorny included studies that we discuss - but I think it's a fairly reasonable proportion
Also, a major criticism has been that we didn't include serology studies
No longer! The updated review includes 12 of the published serology estimates, and has a meta-analysis of just these studies as well
No longer! The updated review includes 12 of the published serology estimates, and has a meta-analysis of just these studies as well
