Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Meta-Analysis & Public Policy Implications

2.1 Overview

To perform the present meta-analysis, we collected published papers and preprints that have studied the seroprevalence and/or infection fatality rate of COVID-19. To identify these studies, we performed online searches in MedRxiv and Medline using the criterion ((“infection fatality rate” or “IFR” or “seroprevalence”) and (“COVID-19” or “SARS-Cov-2”)).⁴ We identified other studies listed in reports by government agencies such as the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention and the U.K. Parliament Office.⁵ Finally, we confirmed the comprehensiveness of our literature search by referring to two recent meta-analysis studies that have assessed overall IFR for COVID-19 and a recent meta-analysis study comparing seroprevalence with reported cases.⁶

Before proceeding further, we restricted our meta-analysis to studies of advanced economies, based on current membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).⁷ It should be emphasized that we applaud recent efforts to assess seroprevalence in a number of developing countries (including Brazil, Croatia, Ethiopia, and Iran), but we have excluded those studies in light of the distinct challenges associated with health care provision and reporting of fatalities in those locations.⁸ We also excluded studies focused exclusively on measuring seroprevalence in a narrow segment of the population such as health care workers or pregnant women.⁹ Appendix A lists all of the studies identified in our literature search.

2.2 Prevalence Measures

Our meta-analysis encompasses two distinct approaches for assessing COVID-19’s prevalence: (1) extensive tracking and contact-tracing using live-virus testing and (2) seroprevalence studies that test for antibodies produced in response to the virus. Testing for the live virus is done by either a quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) molecular test for the viral nucleic acid sequence, or an antigen test for proteins specific to the virus.¹⁰ These tests detect the virus within a few days of disease onset. While using live antigen testing is the optimal approach for determining prevalence, it requires extensive continuous testing of a population, and was only thoroughly implemented in select countries with relatively small populations, notably South Korea, Iceland, and New Zealand.

Most studies of COVID-19 prevalence have proceeded using serological analysis to determine what fraction of the population has developed either IgG or IgM antibodies to the virus. IgM antibodies develop earlier, but decrease over time, while IgG antibodies develop later and remain in high concentrations for several months. Antibodies are tested for using several methods. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) proceed by tagging antibody-antigen interactions with a reporter protein. Chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLA) work similarly by tagging the antigen-antibody interaction with a fluorescent protein. Lateral Flow Assays (LFA), also known as rapid diagnostic tests (RDT), produce a colored band upon antigen-antibody interaction.

Recognizing that SARS-Cov-2 is both novel and hazardous, public regulatory agencies have issued “emergency use authorizations” (EUA) to facilitate the rapid deployment of live virus and antibody tests based on the test characteristics reported by each manufacturer.¹¹ Subsequent studies by independent laboratories have reassessed the characteristics of these test kits, in many cases finding markedly different results than those of the manufacturer. Such differences reflect (a) the extent to which test results may be affected by seemingly trivial differences in its implementation, and (b) the extent to which seriological properties may vary across different segments of the population. For example, a significant challenge in producing accurate tests is to distinguish COVID-19 antibodies from those associated with other coronaviruses (including the common cold). Consequently, the assessment of test characteristics may vary with seemingly innocuous factors such as the season of the year in which the blood samples were collected.

The reliability of seroprevalence testing depends on three key factors: (1) the seroprevalence test’s sensitivity (odds the test detects the virus in an infected person); (2) the seroprevalence test’s specificity (odds the test returns a negative result for a uninfected person); and (3) the true disease prevalence in the sample. In a population where the actual prevalence is relatively low, the frequency of false-positive tests is crucial for determining the reliability of the test results. Consequently, a key metric of test reliability is positive predictive value (PPV), that is, the likelihood that a positive test result is a true positive. The PPV can be evaluated as follows: Evidently, lower prevalence can markedly diminish the reliability of seroprevalence testing. For example, in a seroprevalence study of Dutch blood donors using the Wantai Total Antibody ELISA, the crude prevalence rate was found to be 2.7%.¹² However, that antibody test has a PPV of 42.4%, and hence the adjusted prevalence is only 0.6 %, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0% to 5.2%. In effect, practically all of the positive tests obtained in this study might be false positives. By contrast, a seroprevalence study of New York City found a much higher crude prevalence of 20.0% using a Wadsworth Pan-Ig test with a PPV of 94.8%.¹³ Consequently, the adjusted prevalence for this study is higher than the crude prevalence, namely, 21.7% with a 95 percent confidence interval of 19.2% to 24.4%.¹⁴

Test sensitivity and specificity also have a high impact on PPV. For example, in a serological study of Santa Clara County, researchers used a Premier Biotech LFA test and estimated prevalence at 1.5% based on a test specificity of 99.5%.¹⁵ However, a subsequent study found the specificity of that test to be only 97.2%.¹⁶ That revision to the test specificity reduces its PPV in the Santa Clara study from 71.6% to 31.1%, and the adjusted prevalence for Santa Clara residents declines to 0%; that is, the prevalence in that population was so low that it could not be distinguished from zero.¹⁷

These examples underscore why the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 antibody tests should not be treated as fixed parameters that are known with a high degree of certainty, as would generally be the case for medical tests of other diseases that have been authorized via standard regulatory procedures. Thus, the 95% confidence interval for each seroprevalence estimate should reflect the degree of uncertainty about its sensitivity and specificity as well as the conventional uncertainty that reflects the size of the sample used in producing that estimate.¹⁸

In light of these testing reliability concerns, our meta-analysis excludes seroprevalence studies that do not disclose the test method or report estimates and confidence intervals that reflect the characteristics of the test. We also exclude studies that relied on test kits that were subsequently withdrawn by the manufacturer due to concerns about inadequate reliability.

2.2 Constructing a Representative Seroprevalence Sample

In order to accurately use antibody tests to estimate population prevalence, the study sample must accurately reflect the sampled population. We exclude four types of seroprevalence studies from our paper that do not provide accurate estimates of population-wide age-specific infection rates: (1) studies from clinics including COVID-19 patients; (2) studies which employed active recruitment; (3) studies whose samples are heavily skewed by age; and (4) studies of blood donors. Many of these studies were extremely useful in their originally intended contexts, but are not useful in the current context, for reasons outlined below.

Studies from serum samples at health care facilities produced inflated estimates of prevalence when those samples included patients who were obtaining treatment for symptoms associated with COVID-19. For example, a New York City study from an outpatient clinic in May yielded a seroprevalence estimate double that of two April studies of the same area. As the entire state was in lockdown between the two time points, it is difficult to believe that the prevalence grew so drastically during that time period. Instead, it is likely that the majority of primary care and urgent care patients in the month of May sought medical attention for COVID-like symptoms, and when these patients were not excluded, the estimate of COVID-19 prevalence was inflated

Studies which employ active recruitment also inflate the number of positive patients, as people who think they are positive are more likely to enroll for the free testing. For example, in a study in Luxemburg, of the 35 participants who tested positive, 19 had previously interacted with a person who they knew was positive or had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 previously. Excluding these patients from the sample doubles this particular study’s implied overall IFR.

Even random samples may only draw from younger people, making them less useful for estimating age-specific prevalence and IFRs across the full spectrum of the population. For example, in the French town of Oisie, seroprevalence tests were run on schoolchildren, their teachers, and their immediate families; the entire study only included two individuals older than sixty-five.¹⁹ Since our analysis is aimed at gauging the relationship between IFR and age, we restrict our meta-analysis to studies that report age-specific results for a broad spectrum of age groups.

Finally, seroprevalence studies of blood donors also likely are non-representative and inflate the actual infection rate. In the discussion of their Milan blood donor study, Valenti et al. (2020) note that blood donors are generally healthier than the general population and “might have a higher number of social interactions than other groups.”²⁰ For example, a blood donor study in the United Kingdom estimated 7.8% (CI: 7.1 to 8.6%)²¹ of the population had COVID-19, while a randomized seroprevalence study of the UK population at a later date estimated the prevalence of COVID-19 to be 5.41% (CI: 4.3 to 6.5%).²² Though blood donor studies were useful while few other samples were available, randomized seroprevalence studies provide more reliable population prevalence estimates.

Blood specimen from commercial labs may also not be representative of the location’s broader population. The CDC conducted seroprevalence testing on blood samples from commercial labs in New York City (NYC), Connecticut, Utah, Missouri, and Puget Sound, Washington.²³ Though these studies mostly control for demographic data such as age, zip code, race, and sex, some other factors may skew the data. Patients who received healthcare during quarantine may have been more cautious of infection due to their underlying medical conditions; alternatively, a decision to enter medical spaces may have corresponded with a less cautious demographic. The CDC compares their estimated seroprevalence in each location to the number of reported cases. Four locations have ratios of seroprevalence to reported cases of around 11:1, but the Connecticut study reports a much lower ratio of 6:1, suggesting the study may have underestimated prevalence there, while the Missouri study has a ratio of 25:1 suggesting that prevalence may have been overestimated. These observations are further discussed in Section 3.

Concerns about potential sample selection issues in studies of health care specimens are underscored by findings from a seroprevalence study that analyzed specimens from two commercial laboratories in New York City.²⁴ In that study, the estimated seroprevalence differed markedly between the two labs, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals of 6.5 to 12.3% for Lab A and 3.7 to 6.1% for Lab B.

2.3 Matching Infections to Deaths

Accurately measuring total deaths, the numerator of the IFR calculation, is perhaps more difficult than assessing prevalence. The time lags from onset of symptoms to death and from death to official reporting are crucial. Symptoms typically develop within 6 days after exposure, but may develop as early as 2 days or as late as 14 days.²⁵ More than 95% of symptomatic COVID patients have positive antibody (IgG) tests within 17-19 days of symptom onset.²⁶

The CDC estimates that the mean time interval from symptom onset to death is 15 days for ages 18-64 (interquartile range of about 9 to 24 days) and 12 days for ages 65+ (IQR of 7 to 19 days). The mean interval from date of death to the reporting of that person’s death is about 7 days (interquartile range of about 2 to 19 days). Consequently, the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval between symptom onset and reporting of fatalities is about six weeks (41 days).²⁷

Figure 1 illustrates a scenario in which the pandemic ended two weeks prior to the date of a seroprevalence study. This figure shows the results of a stochastic simulation calibrated to reflect the CDC’s estimated distribution for the time lags between symptom onset, death, and inclusion in official fatality reports. The histogram shows the frequency of deaths and reported fatalities associated with the infections that occurred on the last day prior to full containment. Consistent with the CDC confidence intervals, about 95% of cumulative fatalities are reported within roughly four weeks of the date of the seroprevalence study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Time Lags in the Incidence and Reporting of COVID-19 Fatalities

These considerations underscore the pitfalls of constructing IFRs based on the death toll at the midpoint date of a seroprevalence study, which is the approach that has been taken in most previous studies (including both of the meta-analysis studies of the overall IFR for COVID-19).

In particular, as shown in Table 2, the cumulative fatalities at the time of a seroprevalence study can markedly understate the full death count as of four weeks later. All of these studies were conducted in locations where the pandemic had been contained by the time that seroprevalence was measured, as evident from the fact that the fatality count leveled off over the subsequent month.²⁸

Evidently, the precise timing of the count of cumulative fatalities is relatively innocuous in locations (such as Spain and Castiglione d’Adda) where the outbreak had been contained for more than a month prior to the date of the seroprevalence study. But for the other studies shown in Table 2, the outbreak had only recently been contained, and hence the death count continued rising markedly for several more weeks after the midpoint of the seroprevalence study.

For each of those locations, matching seroprevalence to the death count at the midpoint date of the study would significantly underestimate the true level of the IFR. For example, in the case of New York state, computing the IFR using the 4-week fatality count is nearly 1.5 times higher than using the fatality count at the midpoint date of that study (which was conducted in late April).

By contrast, matching seroprevalence estimates with subsequent fatalities is infeasible if the seroprevalence study takes place in the midst of an accelerating outbreak. In particular, if infections and fatalities continue rising exponentially over subsequent weeks, there is no precise way of determining what fraction of those deaths resulted from infections before vs. after the date of the seroprevalence study.

Therefore, a crucial criterion for seroprevalence studies to be included in our meta-analysis is that the pandemic is well contained in advance of the study, as indicated by the stabilization of cumulative fatalities within the next several weeks after the midpoint date of the study.

As shown in Table 3, four studies are clearly inconsistent with that criterion: Los Angeles County (mid-April), New York City (late March), Santa Clara County (early April), and Scotland (late March).²⁹ It should be emphasized that these studies provided valuable information about seroprevalence in the midst of an active outbreak, but these seroprevalence results are not well-suited for gauging the IFR of COVID-19.³⁰

Finally, it should be noted that reported deaths may not fully capture all fatalities resulting from COVID-19 infections, especially in locations where a substantial fraction of such deaths occur outside of healthcare institutions. In the absence of accurate COVID-19 death counts, an alternative measure, referred to as excess mortality, can be computed by comparing the number of deaths for a given time period in 2020 to the average number of deaths over the comparable time period in prior calendar years, e.g., 2015 to 2019. For example, a recent Belgian study used seroprevalence results in conjunction with excess mortality to compute age-specific IFRs, noting that their measure of excess mortality over the period from March to May coincided almost exactly with the tally of reported COVID-19 cases.³¹ Similar approaches have been used in other European countries (including Spain, Italy, and the U.K.), while the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention provides regular updates on excess mortality for U.S. geographical locations.³²

2.4 Meta-Regression Methodology

The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically assess previous studies of mortality and infection rates to determine how age and fatality risk are related. To perform this analysis quantitatively, we use random-effects meta-regressions, using the STATA metareg procedure.³³ Meta-regressions are a useful tool for comparing study-level summary data. Since the individual observations are not available for any study we use, comparing summary-level data is the only way to compare the studies. We use summary level data from each age group in each study, so effectively one study has multiple “groups” in our meta-regressions.³⁴

We treat each age group separately because there are likely random variations in age-specific IFR both across studies and across age groups within a study. Random-effects procedures allow for such random variation between groups (referred to as residual heterogeneity) by assuming that these effects are drawn from a Gaussian distribution. The procedure provides reasonable results even if the errors are not strictly normal but may be unsatisfactory if the sample includes large outliers or the distribution of groups is not unimodal. In analytical terms, this framework can be expressed as follows: In this specification, IFR_ij is the estimated IFR in study i for age group j, age_ij denotes the median age of that group, ϵ_ij denotes the source of idiosyncratic variations for that particular location and age group, and u_ij denotes the random effects that characterize any systematic deviations in outcomes across locations and age groups. Under the maintained assumption that each idiosyncratic term ϵ_ij has a normal distribution, the idiosyncratic variance is , where U_ij and L_ij denote the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval for that study-age group. The random effects u_ij are assumed to be drawn from a homogeneous distribution with zero mean and variance τ². The null hypothesis of τ² = 0 characterizes the case in which there are no systematic deviations across studies or age groups. If that null hypothesis is rejected, then the estimated value of τ² encapsulates the magnitude of those systematic deviations.

Under our baseline specification, the infection fatality rate increases exponentially with age.³⁵ In particular, this meta-regression is specified in logarithmic terms, with the slope coefficient β encapsulating the impact of higher age on log(IFR). Consequently, the null hypothesis that IFR is unrelated to age can be evaluated by testing whether the value of β is significantly different from zero. If that null hypothesis is rejected, then the estimated values of α and β characterize the estimated relationship between log(IFR) and age. Consequently, the predicted relationship between IFR and age can be expressed as follows: The 95% confidence interval for this prediction can obtained using the delta method. In particular, let IFR_a denote the infection fatality rate for age a, and let σ_c denote the standard error of the meta-regression estimate of log(IFR_a). If IFR_a has a non-zero value, then the delta method indicates that its standard error equals σ_c / IFR_a, and this standard error is used to construct the confidence interval for IFR_a at each age a. Likewise, the prediction interval for log(IFR_a) is computed using a standard error of σ_c + τ that incorporates the systematic variation in the random effects across studies and age groups, and hence the corresponding prediction interval for IFR_a is computed using a standard error of (σ_c + τ)/IFR_a.

2.5 Study Selection

In subsections 2.1 to 2.4, we have identified four specific criteria for determining whether a given study should be included in our meta-analysis: (i) transparency about the characteristics and positive predictive power of the prevalence test procedure; (ii) use of a sample data frame that is broadly representative of the general population; (iii) effective containment of the pandemic prior to the initiation of the prevalence survey; and (iv) and reporting of prevalence estimates and confidence intervals for specific age groups as required for the estimation of age-specific IFRs. Based on those four criteria, we have determined that 32 studies are not suitable for assessing the IFR of COVID-19 even though each of those studies has made significant contributions along other lines. Those 32 studies are listed in Appendix A along with the rationale for excluding each of them from our meta-analysis.

Consequently, our meta-analysis focuses on synthesizing IFR data from thirteen locations; see Appendix A for further details. These locations can be classified into four distinct groups:

• Benchmark Studies: Belgium, Geneva, Spain, and Sweden. Each of these locations has been the subject of a large-scale seroprevalence study using a test procedure with high positive predictive power and a sample frame that is broadly representative of the general public and that covers a wide array of age groups.³⁶ For Belgium and Geneva, estimates of age-specific IFRs have been reported based on each location’s seroprevalence results. For Spain, we construct age-specific IFRs using the seroprevalence data in conjunction with excess mortality data published by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics. For Sweden, we construct age-specific IFRs using the seroprevalence data in conjunction with cumulative fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of the seroprevalence study.³⁷

• Other Large-Scale Seroprevalence Studies: Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Puget Sound, South Florida, Utah. Five of these studies were conducted by the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention, using sample specimens from two commercial laboratory companies, and the sixth was conducted by the New York Department of Health using samples collected at supermarkets and grocery stores.³⁸ In light of potential concerns about sample data frames and limited age-specific seroprevalence data, we include these studies in our meta-analysis but not in the benchmark group. We construct age-specific IFRs using seroprevalence results matched to cumulative fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of each study.

• Comprehensive Tracking and Tracing Countries: Iceland, Korea, and New Zealand. These three countries engaged in extensive testing and tracing to halt the spread of infections. Iceland researchers also conducted a large-scale seroprevalence study, and we use the results of that study in computing age-specific IFRs for Iceland.³⁹ That study also indicates that reported cases in Iceland substantially understated actual prevalence; see Appendix C for details.⁴⁰ Thus, we make corresponding adjustments to the reported cases for Korea and New Zealand in constructing age-specific IFRs for each of those locations.

• Small-scale studies: Castiglione d’Adda, Gangelt, and Diamond Princess cruise ship. The first two locations have had seroprevalence studies based on random samples, while data from Diamond Princess has been influential in informing subsequent studies.⁴¹

3.1 Benchmark Analysis

As shown in Figure 2, the results from a random-effects meta-regression of ln(age) on fatality risk reveal a clear, exponential relationship between age and IFR. Note that the relationship between age and IFR is exponential for all ages, not just the elderly. Thus, the predicted IFR for a forty-year-old parent is exponentially higher than for their ten-year-old child, even though both face relatively low absolute IFRs.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: The Log-Linear Relationship between Age and IFR for COVID-19

As noted in Section 2.4, one key issue for assuring the validity of our meta-regression method is confirming that the distribution of observations is consistent with a normal distribution, without any extreme outliers or clustering of observations. The validity of those assumptions is evident from Figure 2: the observations provide relatively even coverage of the age interval from 30 to 85 years, and nearly all of the observations fall within the 95 percent confidence interval. The only exception is the middle-aged group from the Geneva study, but even that observation is only slightly outside the confidence interval, as one might expect with one out of 21 observations for this meta-regression.⁴²

Figure 3 depicts the exponential relationship between IFR and age using the transformed output of the Stata metareg procedure. The thick red line is the meta-regression’s predicted age-specific IFR curve. The dark purple area is the meta-regression’s 95% confidence interval. This means there is a 95% chance the true relationship between IFR and age is within this confidence interval. The wider, light purple area is the meta-regression’s 95% prediction interval. Taking into account random variation across studies and locations, there should be a 95% chance a subsequent study of age-specific IFR would land within that prediction interval. The prediction interval is much wider than the confidence interval, consistent with the inclusion of random effects in the meta-regression, i.e., there is substantial random variation across studies as well as age groups.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: The Link between Age and IFR for COVID-19

Figure 3 demonstrates a clear, exponential relationship between age and fatality risk. The disease poses a substantial mortality risk for middle-aged adults and even higher risks for elderly people: A 50 year-old faces a 0.14% chance of dying if infected, and that rate rises to 0.5% for a 60-year-old, 1.6% for a 70-year-old, and over 15% for people ages 85 and above.

As indicated in Figure 3, the second-oldest Spanish age-group (70 – 80 years) appears at the high end of the prediction interval. This may be due to sampling error that underestimated the infection rate (resulting in an inflated IFR estimate). Spanish researchers succeeded in conducting a very large-scale seroprevalence study encompassing about 100,000 people, with associated challenges in maintaining consistency across locations and age groups. Thus, it may be plausible that the infection rate was underestimated among the elderly, thereby diminishing the denominator in our IFR calculations. Finally, it is conceivable that elderly people in Spain might have a higher incidence of comorbidities than their peers in other European countries -- a possibility that we revisit in Section 4.

3.2 Comparing Benchmark Results to Other Studies

We now compare the benchmark meta-regression results with the age-specific IFRs for 12 other locations. In effect, this approach is comparable to “out-of-sample” exercises that statisticians commonly use in assessing the validity of a particular model.

As shown in Figure 4, the observations from these twelve studies generally fit within the benchmark prediction intervals, broadly confirming the usefulness of the meta-regression in assessing age-specific IFRs beyond the four locations covered by the set of benchmark studies. Moreover, the outliers in this figure are mostly above the prediction interval rather than below it; that is, the unexplained variations outside the prediction interval tend to be observations with unusually high IFRs.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Assessing Age-Specific IFRs from Other Locations

We now consider the specific results for each group of studies:

4.1 Comorbidities

Researchers have debated whether certain conditions predispose patients to have more severe cases of COVID-19. A recent study in New York City reported the incidence of several chronic medical conditions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; the median age of the patients in that sample was 59 years.⁴⁵ Table 4 compares those results to the average incidence of comorbidities among New York City residents ages 50 years and above – that is, the relevant age group for comparison with the sample of hospitalized patients.⁴⁶ Most comorbidities, including hypertension and diabetes, do not explain which infected individuals are likely to require hospitalization for COVID-19. The only striking positive comorbidity was obesity. However, in NYC, obesity is also much more prevalent among low-income groups who are more likely to live in densely populated neighborhoods and to work in high-exposure jobs. Thus, it is quite possible that NYC’s obese population has a higher infection rate, which would explain the higher hospitalization rate for obese individuals. A more detailed version of Table 4 can be found in Appendix D.

A recent U.K. study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients analyzed the impact of comorbidities on the risk of a fatal outcome.⁴⁷ Table 5 shows the most relevant portion of their results. Evidently, age influences the estimated hazard ratio far more than any specific comorbidity. In effect, comorbidities appear to be a scaling factor that has a noticeable impact on the hazard ratio compared to a healthy peer with no comorbidities, but that impact is much smaller than the impact of higher age. For example, the fatality risk for an obese 40-year-old hospital patient is moderately higher than for a non-obese individual of the same cohort but far lower (less than one-tenth) of the fatality risk for a non-obese 75-year-old hospital patient.

Both of these studies suggest that differences in comorbidity across geographical locations is likely to be a relatively modest factor in explaining the dispersion in overall IFRs for COVID-19, especially compared to the very strong link between IFR and age.

4.2 Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors

Our results indicate that age is a crucial determinant of infection fatality rates for COVID-19. However, our meta-analysis has not directly considered the extent to which IFRs may vary with other demographic factors, including race and ethnicity. Fortunately, some valuable insights can be garnered from other recent studies. In particular, one recent seroprevalence study of residents of two urban locations in Louisiana found no significant difference in IFRs between whites and Blacks.⁴⁸

Nonetheless, the incidence of COVID-19 mortality among people of color is extraordinarily high due to markedly different infection rates that reflect systematic racial and ethnic disparities in housing and employment. For example, a recent infection study of a San Francisco neighborhood found that 80% of positive cases were Latinx – far higher than the proportion of Latinx residents in that neighborhood.⁴⁹ That study concluded as follows: “Risk factors for recent infection were Latinx ethnicity, inability to shelter-in-place and maintain income, frontline service work, unemployment, and household income less than $50,000 per year.” Recent CDC analysis has reached similar conclusions, attributing elevated infection rates among Blacks and Hispanics to dense housing of multi-generational families, increased employment in high-contact service jobs, high incidence of chronic health conditions, and lower quality of health care.⁵⁰

In summary, while the present study has investigated the effects of age on the IFR of COVID-19, further research needs to be done on how infection and fatality rates for this disease are affected by demographic and socioeconomic factors.