Inferring the COVID-19 IFR with a simple Bayesian evidence synthesis of seroprevalence study data and imprecise mortality data
==============================================================================================================================

* Harlan Campbell
* Paul Gustafson

## ABSTRACT

Estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) has proven to be particularly challenging –and rather controversial– due to the fact that both the data on deaths and the data on the number of individuals infected are subject to many different biases. We consider a Bayesian evidence synthesis approach which, while simple enough for researchers to understand and use, accounts for many important sources of uncertainty inherent in both the seroprevalence and mortality data. We estimate the COVID-19 IFR to be 0.38% (95% prediction interval of (0.03%, 1.19%)) for a typical population where the proportion of those aged over 65 years old is 9% (the approximate worldwide value). Our results suggest that, despite immense efforts made to better understand the COVID-19 IFR, there remains a large amount of uncertainty and unexplained heterogeneity surrounding this important statistic.

> Above all, what’s needed is humility in the face of an intricately evolving body of evidence. The pandemic could well drift or shift into something that defies our best efforts to model and characterize it.
> 
> Siddhartha Mukherjee, *The New Yorker*February 22, 2021

## 1 Introduction

The infection fatality ratio (IFR), defined as the proportion of individuals infected who will go on to die as a result of their infection, is a crucial statistic for understanding SARS-CoV-2 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Estimating the COVID-19 IFR has proven to be particularly challenging –and rather controversial– due to the fact that both the data on deaths and the data on the number of individuals infected are subject to many different biases.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies can help provide a better understanding of the true number of infections in a given population and for this reason several researchers have sought to leverage seroprevalence study data to infer the COVID-19 IFR (Clapham et al., 2020). In particular, Ioannidis (2021a), Levin et al. (2020), Brazeau et al. (2020), and O’Driscoll et al. (2020) have all undertaken analyses, of varying degrees of complexity, in which they combine data from multiple seroprevalence studies with available mortality statistics to derive IFR estimates.

The analyses of both Brazeau et al. (2020) and O’Driscoll et al. (2020) are done using rather complex Bayesian models which rely on numerous detailed assumptions. For instance, Brazeau et al. (2020) use a Bayesian “statistical age-based model that incorporates delays from onset of infection to seroconversion and onset of infection to death, differences in IFR and infection rates by age, and the uncertainty in the serosample collection time and the sensitivity and specificity of serological tests.” O’Driscoll et al. (2020) employ a Bayesian “ensemble model” which assumes “a gamma-distributed delay between onset [of infection] and death” and assumes different risks of infection for “individuals aged 65 years and older, relative to those under 65” since “older individuals have fewer social contacts and are more likely to be isolated through shielding programmes.” While these analyses go to great lengths to account for the various sources of uncertainty in the data, the complexity of the models will no doubt make it challenging for other researchers to fit these models to different data in a constantly evolving pandemic.

In contrast, the analyses of Ioannidis (2021a) and Levin et al. (2020) are decidedly more simple. For each seroprevalence study under consideration, Ioannidis (2021a) counts the number of deaths until 7 days after the study mid-point (or until the date the study authors suggest), and divides this number of deaths by the estimated number of infections to obtain a study-specific IFR estimate. A “location specific” IFR estimate is then obtained by taking a weighted (by the study’s sample size) average of the study-specific IFR estimates for a given location (i.e., for a given country or state). Ioannidis (2021a) then calculates the median of all the location specific IFR estimates. No uncertainty interval for this estimate is provided. As such, it is impossible to determine what level of confidence one should place in Ioannidis (2021a)’s estimates.

The analysis of Levin et al. (2020) is based on a standard frequentist random-effects meta-analysis model. For each age-group and seroprevalence study under consideration, Levin et al. (2020) calculate a 95% confidence interval (CI) for a study-specific IFR by counting the number of deaths up until 4 weeks after the study mid-point and dividing this number of deaths by the estimated upper and lower bounds of the number of infected individuals. The meta-analysis model then combines each of these study-specific IFRs. While this analysis provides standard confidence intervals and is relatively straightforward, it fails to take into account certain important sources of uncertainty (to be discussed in Section 2).

The analysis method we propose seeks to be simple enough for researchers to easily understand and use, while at the same time properly account for important sources of uncertainty inherent in both the seroprevalence data and the mortality data. Simple Bayesian models have been used previously for evidence synthesis of seroprevalence data for other infectious diseases (e.g., Brody-Moore (2019)).

A major part in any evidence synthesis is determining which studies to consider within the analysis. Determining appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria for seroprevalence studies is a rather complicated and delicate issue when it comes to estimating the COVID-19 IFR (Ioannidis, 2021b). Reviewing and evaluating the merits of the hundreds of available seroprevalence studies also involves a tremendous amount of review work and time. Fortunately, Chen et al. (2021) have done a thorough review and assessment of potential studies to ascertain study quality (i.e., risk of bias) and eligibility for meta-analysis. We will work from the list of “grade A” and “grade B” studies compiled by Chen et al. (2021), but emphasize that our method could be very easily applied to a different set of seroprevalence studies should that be preferable. We will review the data and how it was obtained in Section 2, following a review of the methods in Section 2. In Section 2, we summarize the results of our analysis and conclude in Section 2 with some final thoughts.

## 2 The Bayesian model for evidence synthesis

Suppose we have data from *K* seroprevalence studies. Then, for *k* = 1, …, *K*, let:

*   *T**k* be the total number of individuals tested in the *k*-th study;

*   *CC**k* be the total number of confirmed cases (of past or current infection) resulting from those tested in the *k*-th study;

*   *P**k* be the number of individuals at risk of infection in the population of interest for the *k*-th study; and

*   *D**k* be the total number of observed deaths (cumulative since pandemic onset) in the population of interest that are attributed to infection.

We do not observe the following latent variables; for *k* = 1, …, *K*, let:

*   *C**k* be the total number of infected people (cases) in the *k*-th population;

*   *IR**k* be the true infection rate (proportion of the *k*-th population which has been infected), which is the expected value of *C**k*/*P**k*; and

*   *IFR**k* be the true underlying infection fatality rate, which is the expected value of *D**k*/*C**k* (given *C**k*).

We will make a series of simple binomial assumptions such that, for *k* = 1, …, *K*: ![Formula][1]</img>  ![Formula][2]</img>  ![Formula][3]</img>  We wish to emphasize the importance of the third “*D*|*C*” binomial distribution above. Failing to account for the conditional distribution of the deaths given the cases may lead to inappropriately precise estimates of the IFR.

For example, Streeck et al. (2020) (in their original preprint (*medRxiv*, May 8, 2020)) calculate an uncertainty interval for the IFR by dividing the number of deaths (*D* = 7) by the upper and lower bounds of the 95% CI for the number of infections (95% CI for *C* = [1,551, 2,389]). Doing so, they obtain a relatively narrow 95% CI for the IFR: [0.29%, 0.45%] (= [7/1,551, 7/2,389]). In the published version of their article (*Nature Communications*, November 17, 2020), an alternative interval “accounting for uncertainty in the number of recorded deaths” is provided. This alternative interval, which essentially takes into account the *D*|*C* binomial distribution, is substantially wider: [0.17%; 0.77%].

In a very similar way, Levin et al. (2020) also fail to take into account the *D*|*C* binomial distribution when estimating study-specific IFRs. This leads Levin et al. (2020) to obtain overly precise IFR estimates for their meta-analysis. The result of this is a very large *I*2 of 97.0 which gives the false impression that the differences in observed IFRs are almost entirely due to “unexplained variations across studies.”.

Having established simple binomial distributions for the study-specific IRs and IFRs, we define a simple random-effects model such that, for *k* = 1, …, *K*: ![Formula][4]</img>  ![Formula][5]</img>  where *θ* is the parameter of primary interest, *τ*2 represents between group IFR heterogeneity, *β* represents the mean g(infection rate), *σ*2 describes the variability in infection rates across the *K* groups, *Z**k* is a covariate of interest that may be related to the IFR by means of the *θ*1 parameter, and g() is a given link function. In our analysis, we define g() as the complimentary log-log link function (cloglog), though there are other sensible choices including the logit and probit functions.

The model is considered within a Bayesian framework requiring the specification of priors for the unknown parameters. Our strategy for priors is to assume weakly informative priors. Beta, Normal, and half-Normal priors (following the recommendations of Gelman et al. (2006) and Kümmerer et al. (2020)) are set accordingly: g−1(*θ*) ∼ *Beta*(0.3, 30); g−1(*β*) ∼ *Beta*(1, 30) ; *θ*1 ∼𝒩 (0, 10) ; *σ* ∼ half-𝒩 (0, 10) and *τ* ∼ half-𝒩 (0, 10). Note that the performance of any Bayesian estimator will depend on the choice of priors and that this choice can substantially influence the posterior when few data are available (Berger, 2013, Lambert et al., 2005). The priors described here represent a scenario where there is little to no *a priori* knowledge about the model parameters. Inference would no doubt be improved should appropriate informative priors be specified. In Appendix 6.3, we show results from the model fit with an alternative set of priors as a sensitivity analysis.

### 2.1 Uncertainty in infection rates

While some seroprevalence studies report the exact number of individuals tested and the exact number of confirmed cases amongst those tested, to obtain estimates for the infection rate, there are typically numerous adjustments made (e.g., adjusting for imperfect diagnostic test accuracy, adjusting for clustering of individuals within a household). For this reason, the sample size of a given study might not be a reliable indicator of its precision and weighting a study’s contribution in an evidence synthesis based solely on its sample size (as in e.g., Ioannidis (2021a)) may not be appropriate.

Rather than work with the raw testing numbers published in the seroprevalence studies, we calculate effective data values for *T**k* and *CC**k* based on a binomial distribution that corresponds to the reported 95% CI for the IR. By “inverting uncertainty intervals” in this way, we are able to properly use the adjusted numbers provided. (This is a similar approach to the strategy employed by Kümmerer et al. (2020) who assume that the IR follows a beta distribution with parameters chosen to match the 95% CI published in Streeck et al. (2020).) Table 1 lists the 95% uncertainty intervals obtained from each of the seroprevalence studies in our analysis and Table 2 lists the corresponding values for *T**k* and *CC**k*.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/T1)

Table 1: 
Seroprevalence studies selected for the analysis based on the list compiled by Chen et al. (2021) (listed in alphabetical order of authors), with geographic location of sampling, sampling dates, and 95% uncertainty interval for the infection rate (IR interval).

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/T2)

Table 2: 
All of the data required for the Bayesian evidence synthesis model.

It must be noted that, as Ioannidis (2021a) cautions, it is possible that under our “inverting uncertainty intervals” approach, poorly conducted seroprevalence studies which fail to make proper adjustments (and thereby have spuriously narrower uncertainty intervals) receive more weight in our analysis, while high-quality studies, which make proper adjustments, are unfairly penalized. Ioannidis (2021a) notes that the strategy of “weighting the study-specific infection fatality rates by the sample size of each study” avoids giving more weight to studies “with seemingly narrower confidence intervals because of poor or no adjustments, while still giving more weight to larger studies.” Since we are restricting our analysis to only those supposedly high quality studies (this according to Chen et al. (2021)), we hope to largely avoid this issue. Weighting studies based on their true precision is obviously the goal in any evidence synthesis, and we recognize that this is particularly difficult when so many studies may misrepresent the precision of their estimates (Bobrovitz et al., 2020, Brownstein and Chen, 2021).

### 2.2 Uncertainty in mortality

Matching prevalence estimates with a relevant number of fatalities is a difficult task. Prevalence estimates obtained from a seroprevalence study do not typically correspond to a specific date. Instead, these estimates will correspond to a window of time during which testing occurred. This period may be only a few days for some studies (e.g., 4 days for Petersen et al. (2020)), but can also be several weeks or months for others (e.g., 135 days for Ward et al. (2020)). Table 1 lists the sampling window start and end dates for each of the studies in our analysis.

Evidently, a longer sampling window will lead to greater uncertainty when it comes to establishing the relevant number of deaths. It can be difficult to account for this uncertainty and analyses will often simply select a specific date at which to count deaths based on some simple rule of thumb. For example, Ioannidis (2021a) considers the number of deaths at 7 days after the mid-point of the sampling window (or as the relevant number of deaths discussed by the seroprevalence study’s authors). As another example, Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone (2020) take the number of deaths as recorded at 10 days after the end of the sampling window. While these two particular analytical choices are not all that different, each may lead to a substantially different number of deaths for a given study if the study was conducted during a period of time in which the number of deaths was rapidly accelerating. Levin et al. (2020), who consider the number of deaths up until 4 weeks after the sampling window mid-point, acknowledge this limitation noting that: “matching prevalence estimates with subsequent fatalities is not feasible if a seroprevalence study was conducted in the midst of an accelerating outbreak.”

In order to account for the uncertainty in selecting the relevant number of deaths for a given seroprevalence study, we propose considering the number of deaths as interval censored data. Table 2 lists numbers for an interval corresponding to the number of deaths recorded 14 days after the start of the sampling window and 14 days after the end of sampling window for each seroprevalence study. While we might not know exactly what number of deaths is most appropriate, we can be fairly confident that the appropriate number lies somewhere within this interval. The 14 day offset allows for the known delay between the onset of infection and death, taking into consideration the delay between the onset of infection and the development of detectable antibodies; see Wu et al. (2020) and Linton et al. (2020).

## 3 The Data

### 3.1 Seroprevalence data

As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed, a rapidly increasing number of sero-prevalence surveys for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been conducted worldwide (Arora et al., 2021). However, many of these studies have produced biased estimates or are otherwise unreliable due to a variety of different issues with study design, and/or with data collection, and/or with inappropriate statistical analysis. Bobrovitz et al. (2020) conclude that a majority of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies are “at high risk of bias […], often for not statistically correcting for demographics or for test sensitivity and specificity, using non-probability sampling methods, and using non-representative sample frames.” We seek to restrict our analysis to high quality studies, those which are less likely to suffer from substantial biases.

Chen et al. (2021) reviewed the literature for articles published between Dec 1, 2019, and Dec 22, 2020 and identified more than 400 unique seroprevalence studies. For each of these, Chen et al. (2021) determined study quality using a scoring system developed on the basis of a seroepidemiological protocol from the Consortium for the Standardization of Influenza Seroepidemiology (Horby et al., 2017). In total, Chen et al. (2021) identified 38 articles which considered a sample based on a general population and which obtained a study quality grade of A or B (see list of all 38 grade A or B general-population-based studies and citations in Chen et al. (2021), Table S8). We consider these 38 articles as a starting point for our analysis.

Among the 38 articles, four studies represented results from different phases of the same study. For each of these we considered only the data from the earliest phase of the study. Stringhini et al. (2020) and Richard et al. (2020) are two publications that report the earlier and later phases, respectively, of the same study of Geneva, Switzerland. We considered only data from the earlier phase as reported in Stringhini et al. (2020). Murhekar et al. (2020a) and Murhekar et al. (2020b) are two publications that report the earlier and later phases, respectively, of the same study in India. We considered only data from the first phase as reported in Murhekar et al. (2020a).

Eight additional studies were not included due to unavailable mortality data for the specific target populations (Alemu et al., 2020, Ling et al., 2020, Mahajan et al., 2021b, Malani et al., 2021, Nisar et al., 2020, Poustchi et al., 2021, Shakiba et al., 2020, Tess et al., 2020); and four additional studies were not included because the articles failed to report 95% uncertainty intervals for the estimated infection rate in the target population (Borges et al., 2020, Majiya et al., 2020, Naranbhai et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2020). Finally, one study was not included due to missing dates for the sampling window (Gudbjartsson et al., 2020). Table 3 in Appendix 6.1 lists the excluded studies.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/T3)

Table 3: 
List of excluded studies and reason for exclusion.

Our final set of seroprevalence studies consists of the *K* = 23 studies listed in Table 1. For each of these, we recorded the 95% uncertainty interval for the infection rate as reported in the article. If an article reported on multiple phases of a study (e.g., a longitudinal series of different surveys), or reported different results for different areas instead of an overall estimate (e.g., a series of different estimates for different regions), we selected only the first set of estimates. Furthermore, if a study reported more than one 95% uncertainty interval (e.g., different intervals corresponding to different adjustments and assumptions), we selected the lowest value amongst the different lower bounds and the highest value amongst the different upper bounds. These numbers are recorded in Table 1 under *IR interval*. Based on these numbers, we calculated effective data values for the number of tests (*T**k*) and the number of confirmed cases (*CC**k*) which are listed in Table 1 alongside population numbers (*P**k*) and numbers corresponding to the proportion of the population over 65 years old (65*yo**k*).

### 3.2 Mortality data

Mortality data was obtained from various sources (e.g., academic, government, health authority); see details in Appendix 6.2. If a seroprevalence study referenced a specific source for mortality data, we used the referenced source for our numbers whenever possible. If no source was referenced or suggested, we considered publicly available data sources.

For many populations, there are concerns that cause of death information may be very inaccurate and lead to biased COVID-19 mortality statistics. To overcome this issue, many suggest looking to “excess deaths” by comparing aggregate data for all-cause deaths from the time during the pandemic to the years prior (Leon et al., 2020). For populations with a large discrepancy between the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 and the number of excess deaths –as suggested by the undercount ratio derived by Karlinsky and Kobak (2021)– we used excess deaths if these were available.

India is the only country represented in our data that is not included in Karlinsky and Kobak (2021)’s analysis and according to Mukherjee et al. (2021): “no rigorous quantification of missing death numbers is currently available” for India. However, there is evidence of potentially substantial under-reporting of COVID-19 deaths in India; see Pulla (2020). The analysis of Banaji (2021) for the city of Mumbai, India suggests an undercount ratio of about 1.6. (Banaji (2021): “Although Mumbai’s data is far from complete, the city remains one of the few locations in India which has seen several serosurveys, and where some limited all cause mortality data is available”). Mukherjee et al. (2021) estimates the undercount ratio for each individual Indian state and Union territory. Based on these estimates, we multiply the upper bounds for the number of deaths associated with the Mukherjee et al. (2021) (“India”) study by a factor of 3.56; and for the Sharma et al. (2020) (“Delhi, India”) study by a factor of 6.3 (see estimated underreporting factors in Figure S2 of Mukherjee et al. (2021)). Note that we do not change the lower bounds of the interval for these two studies. By considering the number of deaths in our analysis as interval censored data, we can account for the substantial uncertainty in these numbers.

Of all the countries represented within our data that are included in Karlinsky and Kobak (2021)’s analysis, only Russia is associated with a large discrepancy between the official number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 and the number of excess deaths (with an estimated undercount ratio of 6.7). As such, for the “Saint Petersburg, Russia” study we use excess deaths as calculated by Kobak (2021).

## 4 Results

The model as described in Section 2, was fit to data as described in Section 2. We fit the model using JAGS (just another Gibbs sampler) (Kruschke, 2014), with 5 independent chains, each with 1,000,000 draws (10% burn-in, thinning of 100); see Appendix 6.4 for details and code. Note that *Z**k* was set equal to the centred and scaled logarithm of 65*yo**k*, such that, for *k* = 1, …, *K*: ![Formula][6]</img>  We report posterior median estimates and 95% highest probability density (HPD) credible intervals (CrI). Figure 1 plots the point estimates and credible intervals obtained for *IFR**k* and *IR**k*, for *k* in 1, …, *K*. The estimates for the study-specific IFR range from 0.17% for the Delhi, India, study, to 1.15% for Spain. We note that the estimate for the Bolinas, CA, USA study has a particularly wide 95% credible interval of: 0.05% - 4.46%. This is due to the fact that in the Appa et al. (2020) study, almost the entire population was tested (1,210 out of a population of 1,620), yet very few individuals tested positive. For the other model parameters, we obtain:

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/F1)

Figure 1: 
Posterior median estimates for the *IR**k* and *IFR**k* variables (for *k* = 1, …, 23) with 95% HPD CIs. Studies are listed from top to bottom according to increasing 65yo. Also plotted, under the labels “World Avg. (9% over 65 yo)”, “USA Avg. (16% over 65 yo)”, “EU Avg. (20% over 65 yo)”, are the posterior median estimate and 95% HPD prediction intervals for the IFR corresponding to values for the proportion of the population aged 65 years and older of 9% (the worldwide value), 16% (the USA value), and 20% (the EU value).

![Graphic][7]</img>, with 95% CrI of (−5.58, -4.93),

![Graphic][8]</img>, with 95% CrI of (−0.09, 0.73),

![Graphic][9]</img>, with 95% CrI of (0.41, 0.94), and

![Graphic][10]</img>, with 95% CrI of (0.97, 1.86).

Our estimate of ![Graphic][11]</img> suggests that older populations are more likely to have higher IFRs. However, we note that the wide credible interval for this parameter overlaps zero. This is quite surprising, since age is known to be a very important risk factor (Zimmermann and Curtis, 2021). There are several reasons why we might have obtained this result. As with any observational data analysis, the estimate of *θ*1 may suffer from bias due to unobserved confounding. Also, statistical power may have been compromised by insufficient heterogeneity in the age-structure across the different populations in our analysis, as captured by the proportion aged over 65 metric.

We also obtain posterior point and interval estimates for the average IFR amongst like-aged populations, by determining the posterior distribution of *g*−1(*θ* + *θ*1*z**), for selected values of *z**. Thus we infer the *typical* IFR amongst populations (be they included in our study or not) having a given proportion of the populace aged over 65. For each of these estimates, in order to better understand the heterogeneity at play, we report corresponding 95% HPD prediction intervals.

The prediction interval provides the range of values within which we are likely to find the true IFR for a population, when all we know of that population is its 65yo value. Mathematically, the prediction interval describes the posterior distribution of *g*−1(*θ* + *θ*1*z** + *τ ε*), where the posterior distribution is augmented to include *ε* ∼𝒩 (0, 1), independently of the other parameters. For more on the relative interpretations of credible prediction intervals, see Higgins et al. (2009), Riley et al. (2011), and IntHout et al. (2016).

For 65yo = 9, the approximate worldwide value, we obtain an across-population average IFR estimate of 0.38%, with a 95% HPD credible interval of (0.19%, 0.59%) and a 95% HPD prediction interval of (0.03%, 1.19%). For 65yo = 16, the United States value, we obtain an across-population average IFR estimate of 0.56%, with a 95% HPD credible interval of (0.37%, 0.74%) and a 95% HPD prediction interval of (0.06%, 1.71%). For 65yo = 20, the European Union value, we obtain an across-population average IFR estimate of 0.65%, with a 95% HPD credible interval of (0.39%, 0.95%) and a 95% HPD prediction interval of (0.07%, 2.04%).

The robustness of our estimates was checked using a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (Iyengar and Greenhouse, 2009); see Table 4 in the Appendix. This sensitivity analysis showed that our estimates may be somewhat sensitive to the study of Sharma et al. (2020) and of Hallal et al. (2020). Elimination of each of the other studies from the evidence synthesis did not have a substantial influence on our results. We also repeated our analysis using a different set of priors to verify that our results were not overly sensitive to our particular choice of priors. The results of this alternative analysis are very similar to the results of our original analysis; see Figure 2 in the Appendix.

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/T4)

Table 4: 
Estimates obtained from the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. For each of the *K* = 23 individual seroprevalence studies, we removed the data associated with the individual study and repeated our analysis.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/13/2021.05.12.21256975/F2)

Figure 2: 
Analysis results with alternative priors - Posterior median estimates for the *IR**k* and *IFR**k* variables (for *k* = 1, …, 23) with 95% HPD CIs. Studies are listed from top to bottom according to increasing 65yo. Also plotted, under the labels “World Avg. (9% over 65 yo)”, “USA Avg. (16% over 65 yo)”, “EU Avg. (20% over 65 yo)”, are the posterior median estimate and 95% HPD prediction intervals for the IFR corresponding to values for the proportion of the population aged over 65 years and older of 9% (the worldwide value), 16% (the USA value), and 20% (the EU value).

Our estimates are somewhat similar to those obtained in other analyses. Brazeau et al. (2020), using data from 10 representative seroprevalence studies (identified after screening 175 studies), infer “the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14%-0.42% 95% prediction interval range).” For a “typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals,” Brazeau et al. (2020) obtain an estimate of 1.15% (95% prediction interval of 0.78%-1.79%). Ioannidis (2021a), using data from seroprevalence studies with sample sizes greater than 500, obtains a “median infection fatality rate across all 51 locations” of 0.27% and (and of 0.23% following an ad-hoc correction to take into account “that only one or two types of antibodies” may have been tested in some seroprevalence studies). Levin et al. (2020), who restricted their analysis to populations in “advanced economies,” do not provide an overall IFR, but instead (perhaps more appropriately) provide age-group specific estimates. For the 45–54 year old age group, Levin et al. (2020) estimate the IFR to be 0.23% (95% CI of 0.20%–0.26%), and for the 55–64 year old age group, 0.75% (95% CI of 0.66%–0.87%).

We can also compare our study-specific IFR estimates to those obtained from other analyses. Marra and Quartin (2020), based on the data of Hallal et al. (2020), estimate a country-wide average IFR for Brazil (for the period of time up until late June, 2020) of 0.97% (95%CrI 0.82%–1.14%). This is similar to our estimate of 1.06% (95%CrI 0.82%-1.34%). Perez-Saez et al. (2021), based on the data of Stringhini et al. (2020), estimate the IFR for the canton of Geneva, Switzerland (for the period of time up until early June, 2020) to be 0.64% (95%CrI 0.38%-0.98%). Our estimate is somewhat lower at 0.47% (95%CrI 0.33%-0.63%).

Pastor-Barriuso et al. (2020), based on the data of Pollán et al. (2020), estimate an IFR for Spain (for the period of time up until late June, 2020) of 0.83% (95% CI 0.78%-0.89%) using deaths with confirmed COVID-19 and of 1.07% (95% CI 1.00%-1.15%) using excess deaths. We obtain a similar estimate for Spain, albeit with a much wider uncertainty interval: 1.15% (95% CI 0.84%-1.64%). Finally, Kümmerer et al. (2020), based on the data of Streeck et al. (2020), estimate the IFR for Gangelt, Germany (for the period up until early April, 2020) to be 0.37% (95% CrI 0.12%-0.67%). This is slightly lower than our estimate of 0.42% (95% CrI 0.19%-0.74%).

Figure 1 lists the 23 studies in order of their 65yo value. It is apparent that there are substantial differences in IFR across different populations that cannot be explained by age structure (as captured by the 65yo covariate) alone (we estimate ![Graphic][12]</img>, with 95% CrI of (0.41, 0.94)). This is made abundantly clear by the very large width of the 95% prediction intervals for the across-population average IFR estimates, and more specifically by looking at the estimates for “Four counties in UT, USA” and “Brazil (83 cities).” Despite having similar values of 65yo (10 vs. 9), we obtain very different IFR estimates for these two populations (0.54% vs. 1.06%).

## 5 Conclusion

Estimation of the IFR can be incredibly challenging due to the fact that it is a ratio of numbers where both the numerator and the denominator are subject to a wide range of biases. Our proposed method seeks to address some of these biases in a straightforward manner.

With regards to the numerator, we considered the number of deaths as interval censored data so as to account for the uncertainty in selecting the most relevant number of deaths. While we consider this an improvement over other methods that use a single fixed number, we acknowledge that the specific choice of a 14 day offset is somewhat arbitrary and that the data for deaths also suffer from other sources of bias. We also wish to emphasize that lack of available mortality data (for the specific geographic areas defined in the seroprevalence studies) was also the main reason for excluding seroprevalence studies from our analysis (8 studies were excluded for this reason).

With regards to the denominator, we looked to data from “high-quality” sero-prevalence studies in an effort to avoid biased estimates. However, these data are far from perfect. Seroprevalence studies are severely limited by the representativeness of the individuals they test. Certain groups of individuals are unlikely to be tested in a seroprevalence study and these groups often have very high infection rates (e.g., institutionalized populations, hospitalized populations, homeless people). On the other hand, those individuals who have reason to believe they may have been infected, may be more likely to volunteer to participate in a seroprevalence study (Shook-Sa et al., 2020).1

The need to improve the quality and reporting of seroprevalence studies cannot be overemphasized. A major limitation of evidence synthesis is often summarized by the expression “garbage in, garbage out” (Eysenck, 1978), meaning that if one includes biased studies in one’s analysis, the analysis results will themselves be biased (Sharpe, 1997). We only included data from 23 out of potentially hundreds of seroprevalence studies due primarily to the fact that so few studies were considered reliable and at low risk of bias.

Excluding low-quality/biased studies from our analysis was necessary, at least to a certain degree, in order to obtain valid estimates. However, as a consequence of our strict exclusion criteria, much of the world’s population is severely under-represented in our data. Indeed, while we include eight different seroprevalence studies from the United States (4 alone from California), not a single study from Africa or the Middle East was included. If the quality of studies were to be correlated with unmeasured factors that impact the IFR, excluding studies based on their perceived quality could lead to unmeasured confounding at a meta-analytic level (Ioannidis and Lau, 1998). Novel methods which allow evidence syntheses to appropriately incorporate biased data are urgently needed. Recently, Campbell et al. (2020) proposed a partially identified model to combine seroprevalence study data with data from official statistics that are known to be biased due to “preferential testing.”

Reducing the uncertainty around the severity of COVID-19 was of great importance to policy makers and the public during the early stages of the pandemic (Faust, 2020, Ioannidis, 2020, Lipsitch, 2020) and immense efforts have been made in the collection and analysis of data. And yet, even after more than a year, there is still a large amount of uncertainty and unexplained heterogeneity surrounding the COVID-19 IFR. While a certain amount of heterogeneity is to be expected (Higgins, 2008), identifying factors associated with higher IFRs is the ultimate goal and investigating potential variables that can account for the observed heterogeneity may lead to important insights (Berlin, 1995, Ioannidis and Lau, 1998).

We prioritized simplicity in our modeling so as to promote transparency in our findings, and to facilitate adaptations to similar, but not identical, data structures. One model extension that could be pursued would involve age stratification of IFR. Age-group specific mortality data is available for many geographic areas and such data could inform an extended version of our model, thereby offering an alternative to the approach described by Levin et al. (2020) for estimating age-group specific IFRs.

Finally, we must emphasize that the IFR is a moving target. As the pandemic changes, so to does the IFR. Our estimates are based on data from 2020, some of which were obtained more than a year ago (see dates listed in Table 1). It is likely that, with continual viral mutation of SARS-CoV-2 and advances in treatment, the current IFR in many places is now markedly different than it was earlier, and our estimates are therefore likely to be outdated (Pietzonka et al., 2021, Walensky et al., 2021). In particular, at the present time, India is experiencing a rapid increase in COVID-19 fatalities which suggests that the current IFR in India may be much higher now than during earlier phases of the pandemic (Padma, 2021, Thiagarajan, 2021).

## Data Availability

The data collected for the analysis is available at: https://tinyurl.com/awskkwkn

## Code

Code to replicate our analysis is available in the Appendix and at [https://github.com/harlanhappydog/BayesianSeroMetaAnalysis](https://github.com/harlanhappydog/BayesianSeroMetaAnalysis).

## 6 Appendix

### 6.1 Excluded studies

Table 3 lists the studies identified by Chen et al. (2021) as grade A or B general-population-based studies that we were unable to include in our analysis. Note that, while we were unable to obtain the relevant number of deaths for Mahajan et al. (2021b), (deaths for the non-congregate population in Connecticut), Mahajan et al. (2021a) derive an estimate for the IFR of 0.95% (90% CI, 0.63%-1.90%).

### 6.2 Details on mortality data

*   For Appa et al. (2020), specific information on deaths for the small town of Bolinas, CA, were difficult to obtain from publicly available databases. Reports in the press suggest that there were zero deaths; see for example: [www.newyorker.com/news/california-chronicles/bolinas-california-the-town-that-tested-itself-for-the-coronavirus](http://www.newyorker.com/news/california-chronicles/bolinas-california-the-town-that-tested-itself-for-the-coronavirus).

*   For Barchuk et al. (2020), we used excess death numbers as reported by Kobak (2021). Russian official statistics appear to underestimate the true number of fatalities by a substantial factor (Karlinsky and Kobak, 2021).

*   For Bendavid et al. (2020), we obtained number of cumulative deaths for Santa Clara County from the SCC Dashboard (data.sccgov.org/) (as referenced by Bendavid et al. (2020)) available at: [www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx](http://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx) (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Biggs et al. (2020), the number of deaths for DeKalb, and Fulton counties was obtained from the county-level COVID-19 dataset curated by the New York Times available at: github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Bruckner et al. (2021), we obtained number of cumulative deaths for Orange County from Orange County Public Works (as referenced by Bruckner et al. (2021)) at: data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ 2ec9342ffc814cf58161b1cca57365fd_0 (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Carrat et al. (2020), we only consider Ile-de-France phase of the study (see Supp. Table 1 for sampling dates). Data for the number of deaths for Ile-de-France was obtained from the Corona Data Scraper website (coronadatascraper.com/; accessed on April 28, 2021) that pulls COVID-19 data from verified sources on national and local levels.

*   For Statistics Jersey (2020), data for the number of deaths was obtained from the Government of Jersey website ([https://www.gov.je/datasets/listopendata?listname=COVID19DeathsClassification](https://www.gov.je/datasets/listopendata?listname=COVID19DeathsClassification); accessed on April 28, 2021) summing both “probable COVID-19” deaths and “laboratory proven” COVID-19 deaths.

*   For the Hallal et al. (2020), we consider only results from the first phase (the May 14 - May 21 survey), and we consider the subset of 83 municipalities where it was possible to conduct 200 or more tests during both survey waves. Data for the number of deaths was obtained from the public Painel Coron-avírus dataset (available at [https://github.com/mquartin/covid19-ifr-br](https://github.com/mquartin/covid19-ifr-br); accessed on April 28, 2021). The date of death in Painel Coronavírus dataset is not the actual time of death but rather the time of notification. For this reason we considered the number of deaths for a given date as the number of deaths recorded in the Painel Coronavírus dataset following the analysis of Marra and Quartin (2020).

*   For McLaughlin et al. (2020), we obtained the number of cumulative deaths for Blaine County, ID, from the county-level COVID-19 dataset curated by the New York Times available at: github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Murhekar et al. (2020a), we obtained the number of cumulative deaths for India, from the Our World in Data COVID-19 dataset available at: ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/india (accessed on April 28, 2021). We multiplied the number recorded for 14 days after the end of the sampling window of 12,573 by a factor of 3.56 (based on Mukherjee et al. (2021)’s estimated underreporting factor for Delhi) in order to account for potential underreporting. As such, our interval is relatively wide and reflects the uncertainty in the true number of deaths: [4,172, 44,760].

*   For Office of National Statistics (2020), we obtained the number of cumulative deaths for England, from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_England; accessed on April 28, 2021) which sources data from the UK coronavirus dashboard (coronavirus.data.gov. uk/). Seroprevalence numbers were obtained from Table 3a of [https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata/2020/previous/v26/covid19infectionsurveydatasets20201002.xlsx](https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata/2020/previous/v26/covid19infectionsurveydatasets20201002.xlsx); (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Petersen et al. (2020), information on deaths for the Faroe Islands was obtained from corona.fo/hagtol, the government information website concerning COVID19 in the Faroe Islands.

*   For Pollán et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths was obtained from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Spain; accessed on April 28, 2021) which sourced the information from the Centro Nacional de Epidemiología (cnecovid.isciii.es/covid19/). Note that, the number of deaths of for 2020-05-11 of 26,920 (14 days after the start of the sampling window), is actually higher than the number of deaths for 2020-05-25 of 26,834 (14 days after the end of the sampling window). This may be due to a reporting issue which is noted by Wikipedia: “Figures for 2020-05-24 to 2020-06-17 include corrections in the validation of past data from several autonomous communities as a result of the transition to a new surveillance methodology implemented from 2020-05-11.” We define the interval as ranging from the lowest value to the highest value, [26,834, 26,920], as listed in Table 2.

*   For Rosenberg et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths was obtained from covidtracking.com/data/state/new-york; (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Samore et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths for the counties of Utah county, Salt Lake county, Davis county, and Summit county, was obtained from the county-level COVID-19 dataset curated by the New York Times available at: github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Santos-Hövener et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths for Kupferzell, Germany was obtained directly from Santos-Hövener et al. (2020) which cites the Robert Koch Institute. Despite efforts, no publicly available dataset was found which could confirm these numbers specific these numbers.

*   For Sharma et al. (2020), infection rate estimates are based on survey data from round 1 of the study (August 1-7). Data for the number of deaths for Delhi was obtained from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_ in_Delhi; accessed on April 28, 2021) which sourced the information from the Delhi State Health Bulletin ([https://delhifightscorona.in/](https://delhifightscorona.in/)). We multiplied the number recorded for 14 days after the end of the sampling window of 4,270 by a factor of 6.3 (based on Mukherjee et al. (2021)’s estimated underreporting factor) in order to account for potential underreporting. As such, our interval is relatively wide and reflects the uncertainty in the true number of deaths: [4,188, 26,901].

*   Snoeck et al. (2020) “recruited a representative sample of the Luxembourgish population” between April 16th and May 5th, and obtained a 95% CI of [1.23%, 2.77%]. Two different 95% CIs, obtained with and without adjustment for age, gender and canton are provided in the paper: [1.23%; 2.67%] and [1.34%; 2.77%]. As such, we record [1.23%; 2.77%] for our IR interval. Data for the number of deaths was obtained from the Our World in Data COVID-19 dataset available at: ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/luxembourg (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Sood et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths for Los Angeles county, CA was obtained from the government of LA county COVID-19 dashboard (dashboard.publichealth.lacounty.gov/covid19_ surveillance_dashboard/; accessed on April 28, 2021). Sood et al. (2020) notes that “Residents of Los Angeles County, California, within a 15-mile (24 km) radius of the testing site were eligible for participation.”

*   For Streeck et al. (2020), data for the number of deaths for Gangelt, Kreis Heinsberg, Germany, were obtained directly from Streeck et al. (2020). Despite efforts, no publicly available dataset was found which could confirm these numbers specific these numbers; however the Gangelt municipal bulletin appears to confirm these numbers (see [www.gangelt.de/news/226-erster-corona-fall-in-nrw](http://www.gangelt.de/news/226-erster-corona-fall-in-nrw); accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Stringhini et al. (2020), mortality data for the canton of Geneva were obtained from an excel file made publicly available by a Swiss government website at: ge.ch/document/covid-19-donnees-completes-debut-pandemie (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Vos et al. (2021), mortality data for the Netherlands was obtained from the Our World in Data COVID-19 dataset available at: ourworldindata.org/ coronavirus/country/netherlands (accessed on April 28, 2021).

*   For Ward et al. (2020), infection rate estimates are based on survey data from from the first survey (20 June - 13 July). We obtained the number of cumulative deaths for England, from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_England; accessed on April 28, 2021) which sources data from the UK coronavirus dashboard (coronavirus.data.gov.uk/).

### 6.3 Sensitivity analysis

As a sensitivity analysis, we repeated the entire analysis with an alternative set of priors. For this alternative analysis, we used: g−1(*θ*) ∼ *Uniform*(0, 1); g−1(*β*) ∼ *Uniform*(0, 1) ; *θ*1 ∼𝒩 (0, 100) *σ* ∼ half-𝒩 (0, 100) and *τ* ∼ half-𝒩 (0, 100). The results are plotted in Figure 2. We also conducted a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis whereby, for each of the *K* = 23 individual seroprevalence studies, we removed the data associated with the individual study and repeated our analysis (Higgins, 2008, Iyengar and Greenhouse, 2009). Results are listed in Table 4 and suggest that our estimates are somewhat sensitive to the data associated with Sharma et al. (2020) and with Hallal et al. (2020).

### 6.4 MCMC details and R code

Note that, in order to improve the MCMC mixing, we replace the binomial distribution for *CC**k* as described in (2), with ![Formula][13]</img>  for *k* = 1, …, *K*. For any sufficiently large *P**k*, this simplification will make little to no difference. Then, since the distributions of *C**k* and *D**k*|*C**k* are both binomials (see (2) and (3)), we have that unconditionally: ![Formula][14]</img>  The following R-code can be used to reproduce the analysis results:

 #### load required libraries: library(“rjags”); library(“RCurl”) #### model in JAGS: metaIFR <-“model { # Priors: icloglog\_theta ∼ dbeta(0.3, 30); icloglog\_beta ∼ dbeta(1, 3); theta <-log(-log(1-icloglog\_theta)); beta <-log(-log(1-icloglog\_beta)); inv.var\_sig <-(1/sigma)^2 ; inv.var\_tau <-(1/tau)^2 ; sigma ∼ dnorm(0, 1/10) T(0,); tau ∼ dnorm(0, 1/10) T(0,); theta1 ∼ dnorm(0, 1/10); # Likelihood: for(k in 1:K){ cc[k] ∼ dbin(ir[k], tests[k]); censor.index[k] ∼ dinterval(deaths[k], c(deaths\_lower[k], deaths\_upper[k])) deaths[k] ∼ dbin(ifr[k]*ir[k], pop[k]); cloglog(ir[k]) <-cloglog\_ir[k]; cloglog(ifr[k]) <-cloglog\_ifr[k]; cloglog\_ir[k] ∼ dnorm(beta, inv.var\_sig); cloglog\_ifr[k] ∼ dnorm(theta + theta1*Z[k], inv.var\_tau);} # Summary: g\_IFR\_9p = theta + theta1*(−1.041098); g\_IFR\_16p = theta + theta1*(0.1890347); g\_IFR\_20p = theta + theta1*(0.6661173); IFR\_9p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_9p)) IFR\_16p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_16p)) IFR\_20p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_20p)) epsilon ∼ dnorm(0,1); predictIFR\_9p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_9p + tau*epsilon)) predictIFR\_16p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_16p + tau*epsilon)) predictIFR\_20p <-1 -exp(-exp(g\_IFR\_20p + tau*epsilon)) }” #### read in dataset: csvfile <-getURL(“[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/harlanhappydog/BayesianSeroMetaAnalysis/main/IFRdata.csv](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/harlanhappydog/BayesianSeroMetaAnalysis/main/IFRdata.csv)“) IFRdata <-read.csv(text = csvfile) #### Fit model ### K <-length(IFRdata$total\_tests) jags.modelIFR <-jags.model(textConnection(metaIFR), data = list(K = K, tests = IFRdata$total\_tests, cc = IFRdata$total\_cases, pop = IFRdata$Population, deaths\_lower = IFRdata$deaths14\_lower-1, deaths\_upper = IFRdata$deaths14\_upper, deaths = rep(NA, K), Z = c(scale(log(IFRdata$aged\_65\_older))), censor.index = rep(1, K)), n.chains = 5, n.adapt = 5000, inits = list(deaths = round(apply(cbind(IFRdata$deaths14\_lower, IFRdata$deaths14\_upper), 1, mean)))) params <-c(“IFR\_9p”, “predictIFR\_9p”, “IFR\_16p”, “predictIFR\_16p”, “IFR_20p”, “predictIFR_20p”, “icloglog_theta”, “theta”, “theta1”, “ir”, “ifr”, “tau”, “sigma”) sampsIFR <-coda.samples(jags.modelIFR, params, n.iter = 1000000, thin = 100, n.adapt = 100000) summary(sampsIFR) 

## Acknowledgments

*This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under ReCoDID grant agreement No 825746* ![Graphic][15]</img> *and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Genetics (CIHR-IG) under Grant Agreement No 01886-000*.

## Footnotes

*   1 Evidently, the potential for selection-bias increases with decreasing response rates. We note that, while some of the seroprevalence studies included in our analysis had high response rates (e.g. Murhekar et al. (2020a) note that: “The response rate in different strata ranged from 86.9 to 95.9 per cent.”), others had lower rates. For example, Sood et al. (2020) obtained a response rate of 50.9% (of the 1,952 individuals invited to participate, 865 were tested). While most of the studies acknowledge this limitation (e.g., Sood et al. (2020) write: “The estimated prevalence may be biased due to nonresponse or that symptomatic persons may have been more likely to participate”), only McLaughlin et al. (2020) attempt to make a statistical adjustment for this type of bias. McLaughlin et al. (2020) asked participants: “Do you believe that you were infected with COVID19?” prior to testing and “applied the Bayes’ odds-likelihood ratio formula” to correct for the potential selection bias. Few additional details are provided and it remains unclear if this adjustment sufficiently de-biased the data. While McLaughlin et al. (2020) invited all residents aged 18 and older to participate (approx. 17,611 individuals), only 917 volunteers were tested (approx. 5.2%).

*   Received May 12, 2021.
*   Revision received May 12, 2021.
*   Accepted May 13, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

## References

1.  Alemu, B. N., Addissie, A., Mamo, G., Deyessa, N., Abebe, T., Abagero, A., Ayele, W., Abebe, W., Haile, T., Argaw, R., Amogne, W., Belachew, A., Desalegn, Z., Teka, B., Kantelhardt, E., Wossen, M., Abdella, S., Tollera, G. and Tadesse, L. (2020), ‘Sero-prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’, bioRxiv.
    
    

2.  Appa, A., Takahashi, S., Rodriguez-Barraquer, I., Chamie, G., Sawyer, A., Duarte, E., Hakim, J., Turcios, K., Vinden, J., Janson, O. et al. (2020), Universal pcr and antibody testing demonstrate little to no transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a rural community, in ‘Open Forum Infectious Diseases’.
    
    

3.  Arora, R. K., Joseph, A., Van Wyk, J., Rocco, S., Atmaja, A., May, E., Yan, T., Bobrovitz, N., Chevrier, J., Cheng, M. P. et al. (2021), ‘Serotracker: a global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence dashboard’, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 21(4), e75–e76.
    
    

4.  Banaji, M. (2021), ‘Estimating COVID-19 infection fatality rate in mumbai during 2020’, medRxiv.
    
    

5.  Barchuk, A., Skougarevskiy, D., Titaev, K., Shirokov, D., Raskina, Y., Novkunkskaya, A., Talantov, P., Isaev, A., Pomerantseva, E., Zhikrivetskaya, S. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Saint Petersburg, Russia: a population-based study’, medRxiv.
    
    

6.  Bendavid, E., Mulaney, B., Sood, N., Shah, S., Ling, E., Bromley-Dulfano, R., Lai, C., Weissberg, Z., Saavedra, R., Tedrow, J. et al. (2020), ‘COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California’, medRxiv.
    
    

7.  Berger, J. O. (2013), Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis, Springer Science & Business Media.
    
    

8.  Berlin, J. A. (1995), ‘Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies’, American Journal of Epidemiology 142(4), 383–387.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7625402&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995RN51400002&link_type=ISI) 

9.  Biggs, H. M., Harris, J. B., Breakwell, L., Dahlgren, F. S., Abedi, G. R., Szablewski, C. M., Drobeniuc, J., Bustamante, N. D., Almendares, O., Schnall, A. H. et al. (2020), ‘Estimated community sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies—two Georgia counties, April 28–May 3, 2020’, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69(29), 965.
    
    

10. Bobrovitz, N., Arora, R. K., Cao, C., Boucher, E., Liu, M., Rahim, H., Donnici, C., Ilincic, N., Duarte, N., Van Wyk, J. et al. (2020), ‘Global seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, medRxiv.
    
    

11. Borges, L. P., Martins, A. F., de Melo, M. S., de Oliveira, M. G. B., de Rezende Neto, J.M., Dósea, M.B., Cabral, B. C. M., Menezes, R. F., Santos, A. A., Matos, I. L. S. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in an asymptomatic population in Sergipe, Brazil’, Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 44.
    
    

12. Brazeau, N., Verity, R., Jenks, S., Fu, H., Whittaker, C., Winskill, P., Dorigatti, I., Walker, P., Riley, S., Schnekenberg, R. P. et al. (2020), ‘Report 34: COVID-19 infection fatality ratio: estimates from seroprevalence’.
    
    

13. Brody-Moore, P. (2019), ‘Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis of asymptomatic ebola seroprevalence’.
    
    

14. Brownstein, N. C. and Chen, Y. A. (2021), ‘Predictive values, uncertainty, and interpretation of serology tests for the novel coronavirus’, Scientific Reports 11(1), 1–12.
    
    

15. Bruckner, T. A., Parker, D. M., Bartell, S. M., Vieira, V. M., Khan, S., Noymer, A., Drum, E., Albala, B., Zahn, M. and Boden-Albala, B. (2021), ‘Estimated seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among adults in Orange County, California’, Scientific Reports 11(1), 1–9.
    
    

16. Campbell, H., de Valpine, P., Maxwell, L., de Jong, V. M., Debray, T., Jänisch, T. and Gustafson, P. (2020), ‘Bayesian adjustment for preferential testing in estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality rate: Theory and methods’, arXiv -preprint arxiv:2005.08459.
    
    

17. Carrat, F., de Lamballerie, X., Rahib, D., Blanche, H., Lapidus, N., Artaud, F., Kab, S., Renuy, A., de Edelenyi, F. S., Meyer, L. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among adults in three regions of france following the lockdown and associated risk factors: a multicohort study’.
    
    

18. Chen, X., Chen, Z., Azman, A. S., Deng, X., Sun, R., Zhao, Z., Zheng, N., Chen, X., Lu, W., Zhuang, T. et al. (2021), ‘Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, The Lancet Global Health 9(5), E598–E609.
    
    

19. Clapham, H., Hay, J., Routledge, I., Takahashi, S., Choisy, M., Cummings, D., Grenfell, B., Metcalf, C. J. E., Mina, M., Barraquer, I. R. et al. (2020), ‘Seroepidemiologic study designs for determining SARS-CoV-2 transmission and immunity’, Emerging Infectious Diseases 26(9), 1978.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid2609.201840&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

20. Eysenck, H. J. (1978), ‘An exercise in mega-silliness.’, American Psychologist 33(5), 517.
    
    

21. Faust, J. S. (2020), ‘Comparing COVID-19 deaths to flu deaths is like comparing apples to oranges’, Scientific American, [https://tinyurl.com/ydxx8el8](https://tinyurl.com/ydxx8el8).
    
    

22. Gelman, A. et al. (2006), ‘Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper)’, Bayesian Analysis 1(3), 515–534.
    
    

23. Gudbjartsson, D. F., Norddahl, G. L., Melsted, P., Gunnarsdottir, K., Holm, H., Eythorsson, E., Arnthorsson, A. O., Helgason, D., Bjarnadottir, K., Ingvarsson, R. F. et al. (2020), ‘Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland’, New England Journal of Medicine 383(18), 1724–1734.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

24. Hallal, P. C., Hartwig, F. P., Horta, B. L., Silveira, M. F., Struchiner, C. J., Vidaletti, L. P., Neumann, N. A., Pellanda, L. C., Dellagostin, O. A., Burattini, M. N. et al. (2020), ‘SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in Brazil: results from two successive nationwide serological household surveys’, The Lancet Global Health 8(11), e1390–e1398.
    
    

25. Higgins, J. P. (2008), ‘Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified’, International journal of epidemiology 37(5), 1158–1160.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/dyn204&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18832388&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259771500032&link_type=ISI) 

26. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G. and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009), ‘A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 172(1), 137–159.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19381330&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261962600009&link_type=ISI) 

27. Horby, P. W., Laurie, K. L., Cowling, B. J., Engelhardt, O. G., Sturm-Ramirez, K., Sanchez, J. L., Katz, J. M., Uyeki, T. M., Wood, J., Van Kerkhove, M. D. et al. (2017), ‘Consise statement on the reporting of seroepidemiologic studies for influenza (roses-i statement): an extension of the strobe statement’, Influenza and other respiratory viruses 11(1), 2–14.
    
    

28. IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P., Rovers, M. M. and Goeman, J. J. (2016), ‘Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis’, BMJ open 6(7).
    
    

29. Ioannidis, J. P. (2020), ‘First Opinion: A fiasco in the making? as the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data’, STAT, [https://tinyurl.com/uj539o4](https://tinyurl.com/uj539o4).
    
    

30. Ioannidis, J. P. (2021a), ‘Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 99(1), 19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2471/BLT.20.265892&link_type=DOI) 

31. Ioannidis, J. P. (2021b), ‘Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations’, European Journal of Clinical Investigation p. e13554.
    
    

32. Ioannidis, J. P. and Lau, J. (1998), ‘Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?’, The Lancet 352(9128), 590.
    
    

33. Iyengar, S. and Greenhouse, J. (2009), ‘Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics’, Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis pp. 417–433.
    
    

34. Karlinsky, A. and Kobak, D. (2021), ‘The world mortality dataset: Tracking excess mortality across countries during the COVID-19 pandemic’, medRxiv.
    
    

35. Kobak, D. (2021), ‘Excess mortality reveals Covid’s true toll in Russia’, Significance 18(1), 16.
    
    

36. Kruschke, J. (2014), Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan, Academic Press.
    
    

37. Kümmerer, M., Berens, P. and Macke, J. (2020), ‘A simple Bayesian analysis of the infection fatality rate in Gangelt, and an uncertainty aware extrapolation to infection-counts in Germany’, [https://matthias-k.github.io/BayesianHeinsberg.html](https://matthias-k.github.io/BayesianHeinsberg.html).
    
    

38. Lambert, P. C., Sutton, A. J., Burton, P. R., Abrams, K. R. and Jones, D. R. (2005), ‘How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in mcmc using winbugs’, Statistics in Medicine 24(15), 2401–2428.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.2112&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16015676&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230974900009&link_type=ISI) 

39. Leon, D. A., Shkolnikov, V. M., Smeeth, L., Magnus, P., Pechholdová, M. and Jarvis, C. I. (2020), ‘COVID-19: a need for real-time monitoring of weekly excess deaths’, The Lancet 395(10234), E81.
    
    

40. Levin, A. T., Hanage, W. P., Owusu-Boaitey, N., Cochran, K. B., Walsh, S. P. and Meyerowitz-Katz, G. (2020), ‘Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications’, European Journal of Epidemiology pp. 1–16.
    
    

41. Ling, R., Yu, Y., He, J., Zhang, J., Xu, S., Sun, R., Li, T., Ji, H.-L. and Wang, H.-Q. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence and epidemiological characteristics of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people in Wuhan, China’, China (6/15/2020).
    
    

42. Linton, N. M., Kobayashi, T., Yang, Y., Hayashi, K., Akhmetzhanov, A. R., Jung, S.-m., Yuan, B., Kinoshita, R. and Nishiura, H. (2020), ‘Incubation period and other epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infections with right truncation: a statistical analysis of publicly available case data’, Journal of Clinical Medicine 9(2), 538.
    
    

43. Lipsitch, M. (2020), ‘First Opinion: We know enough now to act decisively against COVID-19. social distancing is a good place to start’, STAT, [https://tinyurl.com/yx4gf9mr](https://tinyurl.com/yx4gf9mr).
    
    

44. Mahajan et al. (2021a), ‘SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalization rate and infection fatality rate among the non-congregate population in Connecticut’, The American Journal of Medicine.
    
    

45. Mahajan et al. (2021b), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies among adults living in Connecticut: Post-infection prevalence (pip) study’, The American Journal of Medicine 134(4), 526–534.
    
    

46. Majiya, H., Aliyu-Paiko, M., Balogu, V. T., Musa, D. A., Salihu, I. M., Kawu, A. A., Bashir, I. Y., Sani, A. R., Baba, J., Muhammad, A. T. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Niger State’, medRxiv.
    
    

47. Malani, A., Shah, D., Kang, G., Lobo, G. N., Shastri, J., Mohanan, M., Jain, R., Agrawal, S., Juneja, S., Imad, S. et al. (2021), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in slums versus non-slums in Mumbai, India’, The Lancet Global Health 9(2), e110–e111.
    
    

48. Marra, V. and Quartin, M. (2020), ‘A Bayesian estimate of the COVID-19 infection fatality rate in Brazil based on a random seroprevalence survey’, medRxiv.
    
    

49. McLaughlin, C. C., Doll, M. K., Morrison, K. T., McLaughlin, W. L., O’Connor, T., Sholukh, A. M., Bossard, E. L., Phasouk, K., Ford, E. S., Diem, K. et al. (2020), ‘High community SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in a ski resort community, Blaine County, Idaho, US. preliminary results’, medRxiv.
    
    

50. Meyerowitz-Katz, G. and Merone, L. (2020), ‘A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates’, International Journal of Infectious Diseases 101, 138– 148.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

51. Mukherjee, B., Purkayashtha, S., Kundu, R. and Bhaduri, R. (2021), ‘Estimating the infection fatality rate from SARS-CoV-2 in India’, Available at SSRN 3798552.
    
    

52. Murhekar et al. (2020a), ‘Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: Findings from the national serosurvey, May-June 2020’, Indian Journal of Medical Research 152(1), 48.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

53. Murhekar et al. (2020b), ‘SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in India: Findings from the second nation-wide household serosurvey, August-September 2020’.
    
    

54. Naranbhai, V., Chang, C. C., Beltran, W. F. G., Miller, T. E., Astudillo, M. G., Villalba, J. A., Yang, D., Gelfand, J., Bernstein, B. E., Feldman, J. et al. (2020), ‘High seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Chelsea, Massachusetts’, The Journal of Infectious Diseases 222(12), 1955–1959.
    
    

55. Nisar, M. I., Nadia Ansari, M. and Khalid, F. (2020), ‘Serial population-based sero-surveys for COVID-19 in low and high transmission’.
    
    

56. O’Driscoll, M., Dos Santos, G. R., Wang, L., Cummings, D. A., Azman, A. S., Paireau, J., Fontanet, A., Cauchemez, S. and Salje, H. (2020), ‘Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2’, Nature pp. 1–6.
    
    

57. Office of National Statistics (2020), ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection survey: England’, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata).
    
    

58. Padma, T. (2021), ‘India’s COVID-vaccine woes—by the numbers’, Nature 592(7855), 500–501.
    
    

59. Pastor-Barriuso, R., Perez-Gomez, B., Hernan, M. A., Perez-Olmeda, M., Yotti, R., Oteo, J., Sanmartin, J. L., Leon-Gomez, I., Fernandez-Garcia, A., Fernandez-Navarro, P. et al. (2020), ‘SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk in a nationwide seroepidemiological study’, medRxiv.
    
    

60. Perez-Saez, J., Lauer, S. A., Kaiser, L., Regard, S., Delaporte, E., Guessous, I., Stringhini, S., Azman, A. S., Alioucha, D., Arm-Vernez, I. et al. (2021), ‘Serology-informed estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk in Geneva, Switzerland’, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 21(4), e69–e70.
    
    

61. Petersen, M. S., Strøm, M., Christiansen, D. H., Fjallsbak, J. P., Eliasen, E. H., Johansen, M., Veyhe, A. S., Kristiansen, M. F., Gaini, S., Møller, L. F. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, Faroe Islands’, Emerging Infectious Diseases 26(11), 2760.
    
    

62. Pietzonka, P., Brorson, E., Bankes, W., Cates, M. E., Jack, R. L. and Adhikari, R. (2021), ‘Bayesian inference across multiple models suggests a strong increase in lethality of COVID-19 in late 2020 in the UK’, medRxiv.
    
    

63. Pollán, M., Pérez-Gómez, B., Pastor-Barriuso, R., Oteo, J., Hernán, M. A., Pérez-Olmeda, M., Sanmartín, J. L., Fernández-García, A., Cruz, I., de Larrea, N. F. et al. (2020), ‘Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study’, The Lancet 396(10250), 535–544.
    
    

64. Poustchi, H., Darvishian, M., Mohammadi, Z., Shayanrad, A., Delavari, A., Bahadorimonfared, A., Eslami, S., Javanmard, S. H., Shakiba, E., Somi, M. H. et al. (2021), ‘SARS-CoV-2 antibody sero-prevalence in the general population and high-risk occupational groups across 18 cities in Iran: a population-based cross-sectional study’, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 21(4), 473–481.
    
    

65. Pulla, P. (2020), ‘What counts as a cOVID-19 death?’, The BMJ 370.
    
    

66. Richard, A., Wisniak, A., Perez-Saez, J., Garrison-Desany, H., Petrovic, D., Piumatti, G., Baysson, H., Picazio, A., Pennacchio, F., De Ridder, D. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, risk factors for infection and associated symptoms in Geneva, Switzerland: a population-based study’, medRxiv.
    
    

67. Riley, R. D., HIgGins, J. P. and Deeks, J. J. (2011), ‘Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses’, The BMJ 342.
    
    

68. Rosenberg, E. S., Tesoriero, J. M., Rosenthal, E. M., Chung, R., Barranco, M. A., Styer, L. M., Parker, M. M., Leung, S.-Y. J., Morne, J. E., Greene, D. et al. (2020), ‘Cumulative incidence and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in New York’, Annals of Epidemiology 48, 23–29.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.06.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32648546&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

69. Samore, M., Looney, A., Orleans, B., Greene, T., Seegert, N., Delgado, J. C., Presson, A., Zhang, C., Ying, J., Zhang, Y. et al. (2020), ‘SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and detection fraction in Utah urban populations from a probability-based sample’, medRxiv.
    
    

70. Santos-Hövener, C., Neuhauser, H. K., Rosario, A. S., Busch, M., Schlaud, M., Hoffmann, R., Gößwald, A., Koschollek, C., Hoebel, J., Allen, J. et al. (2020), ‘Serology-and PCR-based cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults in a successfully contained early hotspot (comolo study), Germany, May to June 2020’, Eurosurveillance 25(47), 2001752.
    
    

71. Shakiba, M., Nazari, S. S. H., Mehrabian, F., Rezvani, S. M., Ghasempour, Z. and Heidarzadeh, A. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of COVID-19 virus infection in Guilan province, Iran’, medRxiv.
    
    

72. Sharma, N., Sharma, P., Basu, S., Saxena, S., Chawla, R., Dushyant, K., Mundeja, N., Marak, Z. S., Singh, S., Singh, G. K. et al. (2020), ‘The seroprevalence and trends of SARS-CoV-2 in Delhi, India: A repeated population-based seroepidemiological study’, medRxiv.
    
    

73. Sharpe, D. (1997), ‘Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away’, Clinical Psychology Review 17(8), 881–901.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00056-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9439872&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000071187600003&link_type=ISI) 

74. Shook-Sa, B. E., Boyce, R. M. and Aiello, A. E. (2020), ‘Estimation without representation: early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies and the path forward’, The Journal of Infectious Diseases 222(7), 1086–1089.
    
    

75. Snoeck, C. J., Vaillant, M., Abdelrahman, T., Satagopam, V. P., Turner, J. D., Beaumont, K., Gomes, C. P., Fritz, J. V., Schröder, V. E., Kaysen, A. et al. (2020), ‘Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Luxembourgish population: the CON-VINCE study.’, medRxiv.
    
    

76. Sood, N., Simon, P., Ebner, P., Eichner, D., Reynolds, J., Bendavid, E. and Bhattacharya, J. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies among adults in Los Angeles County, California, on april 10-11, 2020’, JAMA 323(23), 2425–2427.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

77. Statistics Jersey (2020), ‘SARS-CoV-2: prevalence of antibodies in Jersey’, [https://tinyurl.com/6htjn3af](https://tinyurl.com/6htjn3af).
    
    

78. Streeck, H., Schulte, B., Kümmerer, B. M., Richter, E., Höller, T., Fuhrmann, C., Bartok, E., Dolscheid-Pommerich, R., Berger, M., Wessendorf, L., Eschbach-Bludau, M., Kellings, A., Schwaiger, A., Coenen, M., Hoffmann, P., Stoffel-Wagner, B., Nöthen, M. M., Eis-Hübinger, A. M., Exner, M., Schmithausen, R. M., Schmid, M. and Hartmann, G. (2020), ‘Infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a German community with a super-spreading event’, Nature Communications 11(1), 5829.
    
    

79. Stringhini, S., Wisniak, A., Piumatti, G., Azman, A. S., Lauer, S. A., Baysson, H., De Ridder, D., Petrovic, D., Schrempft, S., Marcus, K. et al. (2020), ‘Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in Geneva, Switzerland (serocov-pop): a population-based study’, The Lancet 396(10247), 313–319.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31304-0&link_type=DOI) 

80. Tess, B. H., Granato, C. F., Alves, M. C., Pintao, M. C., Rizzatti, E., Nunes, M. C. and Reinach, F. C. (2020), ‘SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the municipality of São Paulo, Brazil, ten weeks after the first reported case’, medRxiv.
    
    

81. Thiagarajan, K. (2021), ‘Why is India having a COVID-19 surge?’, The BMJ 373.
    
    

82. Vos, E. R. A., den Hartog, G., Schepp, R. M., Kaaijk, P., van Vliet, J., Helm, K., Smits, G., Wijmenga-Monsuur, A., Verberk, J. D. M., van Boven, M., van Binnendijk, R. S., de Melker, H. E., Mollema, L. and van der Klis, F. R. M. (2021), ‘Nationwide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and identification of risk factors in the general population of the netherlands during the first epidemic wave’, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 75(6), 489–495.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI3NS82LzQ4OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA1LzEzLzIwMjEuMDUuMTIuMjEyNTY5NzUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

83. Walensky, R. P., Walke, H. T. and Fauci, A. S. (2021), ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in the United States—Challenges and opportunities’, JAMA 325(11), 1037–1038.
    
    

84. Wang, X., Gao, W., Cui, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, K., Ke, J., Lv, J., Yu, C., Sun, D., Wang, Q. et al. (2020), ‘A population-based seroprevalence survey of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Beijing, China’, medRxiv.
    
    

85. Ward, H., Cooke, G., Atchison, C. J., Whitaker, M., Elliott, J., Moshe, M., Brown, J. C., Flower, B., Daunt, A., Ainslie, K. E. et al. (2020), ‘Declining prevalence of antibody positivity to SARS-CoV-2: a community study of 365,000 adults’, medRxiv.
    
    

86. Wu, J. T., Leung, K., Bushman, M., Kishore, N., Niehus, R., de Salazar, P. M., Cowling, B. J., Lipsitch, M. and Leung, G. M. (2020), ‘Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China’, Nature Medicine 26(4), 506–510.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-020-0822-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F13%2F2021.05.12.21256975.atom) 

87. Zimmermann, P. and Curtis, N. (2021), ‘Why is COVID-19 less severe in children? a review of the proposed mechanisms underlying the age-related difference in severity of sars-cov-2 infections’, Archives of disease in childhood 106(5), 429–439.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImFyY2hkaXNjaGlsZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDYvNS80MjkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wNS8xMy8yMDIxLjA1LjEyLjIxMjU2OTc1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)

 [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif
 [2]: /embed/graphic-2.gif
 [3]: /embed/graphic-3.gif
 [4]: /embed/graphic-4.gif
 [5]: /embed/graphic-5.gif
 [6]: /embed/graphic-9.gif
 [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
 [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
 [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
 [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
 [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif
 [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
 [13]: /embed/graphic-13.gif
 [14]: /embed/graphic-14.gif
 [15]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif