Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the globe, some fundamental issues have remained unclear: How dangerous is COVID-19? And to whom? The answers to these questions have crucial implications in determining appropriate public health policies as well as informing prudent decision-making by individuals, families, and communities.

The severity of an infectious disease can be gauged in terms of its infection fatality rate (IFR), that is, the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals. The IFR is readily observable for certain viruses, such as Ebola, where nearly every case is associated with severe symptoms and the incidence of fatalities is extremely high; for such diseases, the IFR is practically identical to the case fatality rate (CFR), that is, the ratio of deaths to reported cases. By contrast, most people who are infected with SARS-Cov-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—are asymptomatic or experience only mild symptoms such as headache or loss of taste and may be unlikely to receive a viral test or be included in official case reports. Consequently, reported cases tend to comprise a small fraction of the total number of infections, and hence the CFR is not an adequate metric for the true severity of the disease.

As shown in Table 1, assessing the IFR for COVID-19 is analogous to finding a needle in a haystack, especially in a dense urban area such as New York City (NYC). The New York State Department of Health recently conducted a large-scale seroprevalence study and estimated the NYC infection rate at about 22%, that is, 1.6 million out of 8 million NYC residents.¹ As of mid-July, NYC had about 220,000 reported COVID-19 cases, almost exactly one-tenth of the total number of infections.² About one-fourth of those reported cases were severe enough to require hospitalization, many of whom unfortunately succumbed to the disease. All told, fatalities represented about one-tenth of reported cases but only one-hundredth of all infections.

While the NYC data indicate an IFR of about 1%, analysis of other locations has produced a wide array of IFR estimates, e.g., 0.6% in Geneva, 0.8% in Spain, 1.3% in Belgium, and 2.2% in Italy. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis noted the high degree of heterogeneity across aggregate estimates of IFR and concluded that research on age-stratified IFR is “urgently needed to inform policymaking.”³

In this paper, we consider the hypothesis that the observed variation in IFR across locations may primarily reflect the age specificity of COVID-19 infections and fatalities. In particular, the overall IFR for a given location can be expressed as follows: using data for N distinct age groups, where POPSHARE_a denotes the share of age group a in the total population, INFRATE_a denotes that age group’s COVID-19 infection rate, and IFR_a denotes that age group’s infection fatality rate. Demographic information about the age structure for a given location is readily available from census data. Consequently, a crucial task is to use age-specific measures of prevalence to assess age-specific IFRs.

Methodology

To perform the present meta-analysis, we collected published papers and preprints regarding the seroprevalence and/or infection fatality rate of COVID-19. To identify these studies, we systematically performed online searches in MedRxiv and Medline using the criterion ((“infection fatality rate” or “IFR” or “seroprevalence”) and (“COVID-19” or “SARS-Cov-2”)). We identified other studies listed in reports by government institutions such as the U.K. Parliament Office.⁴ Finally, we confirmed the coverage of our search by referring to two recent meta-analysis studies of the overall IFR for COVID-19 and a recent meta-analysis of the ratio of measured seroprevalence to reported cases.^3,5,6 Our search encompassed studies that were publicly disseminated prior to August 13. Data was extracted from studies by three authors and verified prior to inclusion.

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. We also excluded studies that were focused on measuring seroprevalence in a narrow segment of the population such as health care workers or pregnant women.

Our meta-analysis encompasses two distinct approaches for assessing 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. These tests detect the virus within a few days of disease onset. While live antigen tests provide data regarding the incidence of infections, comprehensive tracking and tracking programs have only been implemented in a small number of countries, notably the Republic of Korea (henceforth “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. 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.

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. In particular, the 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.^8,9 Indeed, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found very substantial divergences in sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 serological tests.¹⁰

Measurement of Fatalities

Accurately measuring total deaths is a non-trivial issue in assessing IFR due to time lags from onset of symptoms to death and from death to official reporting. Symptoms typically develop within 6 days after exposure, but may develop as early as 2 days or as late as 14 days.^19,20 More than 95% of symptomatic COVID patients have positive antibody (IgG) tests within 17-19 days of symptom onset.^21,22 The U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention 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), while 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), and hence the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval between symptom onset and reporting of fatalities is about six weeks (41 days).²³

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 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 confidence intervals of the U.S. CDC’s estimates, 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:

Study selection (PRISMA flow diagram)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

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. Each of these studies was conducted in a location 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.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2:

Timing of Reported Fatalities for Selected Seroprevalence Studies

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 3:

Characteristics of studies included in metaregression

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).

In light of these findings, we construct age-specific IFRs using the seroprevalence data in conjunction with cumulative fatalities four weeks after the midpoint date of each seroprevalence study. We have also conducted sensitivity analysis using cumulative fatalities five weeks after the midpoint date. When the change in cumulative fatalities is less than 10%, this choice has negligible impact on the estimates and confidence intervals of the age-specific IFRs, especially compared to the width of the confidence intervals for the seroprevalence estimates that reflect uncertainties about test characteristics as well as conventional sampling uncertainty.

By contrast, matching prevalence 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 key 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. Of course, a seroprevalence study can provide valuable information even in the midst of an active outbreak, but such results are not well-suited for gauging IFRs.

Meta-Regression Procedure

To analyze IFR by age, we use meta-regression with random effects, using the meta regress procedure in Stata v16.^24,25 Random-effects procedures allow for residual heterogeneity between studies and across age groups by assuming that these divergences 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.¹ 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.

In estimating this metaregression, we only use observations for age groups with a median age of 35 years or higher. COVID-19 fatality reports from numerous locations indicate that the age-specific IFR is extraordinarily close to zero for children and young adults. For example, at the end of May Belgium had a cumulative total of 9,150 deaths, with not a single fatality for ages 0 to 24 years.

Results

After an initial screening of 944 studies, the full texts of 73 studies were reviewed, of which 33 studies were excluded due to lack of age-specific data on COVID-19 prevalence or fatalities.^15,42-73 Two seroprevalence studies of New York City were excluded because the outbreak was still accelerating at the time of each study.^12,17 Studies of non-representative samples were excluded as follows: 10 studies of blood donors, 4 studies of patients of hospitals and outpatient clinics, 4 studies with active recruitment of participants, and 2 studies of elementary schools.^18,74-87 Consequently, our meta-analysis focuses on synthesizing IFR data from 24 locations, which can be classified into four distinct groups:

• Randomized Samples include national studies of Belgium, England, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden and regional studies of Geneva, Switzerland and four U.S. locations (Atlanta, Indiana, New York, and Salt Lake City). Each of these studies used a sample frame that was broadly representative of the general public.

• Comprehensive Tracking and Tracing Countries: Iceland, Korea, and New Zealand. Iceland researchers also conducted a large-scale seroprevalence study, which is used in computing age-specific IFRs for Iceland. That study also indicates that reported cases in Iceland substantially understated actual prevalence, especially for younger age groups; consequently, we make corresponding adjustments for Korea and Iceland.

• Convenience Samples include eight U.S. locations of Connecticut, Louisiana, Miami, Minneapolis, Missouri, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle; seroprevalence rates for these locations were reported in a study conducted by researchers at the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention using specimens from two commercial laboratories.¹² Consequently, these findings have significant risk of outcome bias associated with the sample data frame. Moreover, in four of these locations (Louisiana, Minneapolis, Missouri, and Philadelphia), cumulative fatalities were still mounting rapidly four weeks after the midpoint date of specimen collections, reflecting the extent to which the pandemic was not yet tightly contained. Consequently, some additional caution is warranted in interpreting age-specific IFRs from those four locations.

• Other Studies: Prevalence and fatality data from the Diamond Princess cruise ship has been influential in informing subsequent studies of COVID-19. Castiglione d’Adda is the municipality that was the location of the first COVID-related fatality in Italy. Our metaregression includes a very large seroprevalence study of the English population, and hence another study conducted by U.K. Biobank is included in our meta-analysis but not in our metaregression to avoid pitfalls of nested or overlapping samples. Likewise, our metaregression includes a large study of a representative sample in Salt Lake City, and hence the seroprevalence results obtained from a convenience sample of Utah residents is included in our meta-analysis but not in the metaregression.

We obtain the following meta-regression results: where the standard error for each estimated coefficient is given in parentheses. These estimates are highly significant with t-statistics of -26.0 and 26.1, respectively, and p-values below 0.0005. The residual heterogeneity τ² = 0.275 (p-value < 0.0001), with I² = 95.7, confirming that the random effects are essential for capturing unexplained variations across studies and age groups., The adjusted R² is 92.3%.

As noted above, the validity of this meta-regression rests on the condition that the data are consistent with a Gaussian distribution, i.e., there should be no clustering of observations or extreme outliers. The validity of those assumptions is evident in Figure 3. The solid red line depicts the estimated log-linear function, the dark shaded area denotes the 95% confidence interval for that estimated function, and the light shaded area denotes the 95% prediction interval that reflects the random variations across studies and age groups. The markers denote the age-specific IFRs from each study, which provide relatively balanced coverage spanning the entire age interval from 35 to 90 years. Moreover, nearly all of the observations fall within the 95% prediction interval. Two observations (both from the Geneva study) are at the lower edge of the prediction interval, while a few observations (all from convenience samples) lie at or above the upper edge of the prediction interval. This pattern broadly matches the incidence of moderate outliers that one would expect in a sample of 112 draws from a Gaussian distribution.²

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

The log-linear relationship between IFR and age

Figure 4 depicts the exponential relationship between age and the level of IFR in percent. Evidently, the SARS-CoV-2 virus poses a substantial mortality risk for middle-aged adults and even higher risks for elderly people: The IFR is close to zero for younger adults but rises to about 0.3% for ages 50-59, 1.2% for ages 60-69, about 4% for ages 70-79, 14% for ages 80-89, and exceeds 25% for ages 90 and above.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Benchmark analysis of the link between age and IFR

The age-specific IFRs from small-scale prevalence studies of the Diamond Princess cruise ship and the municipality of Castiglione d’Adda are broadly consistent with these meta-regression results. For example, 619 individuals on Diamond Princess had confirmed positive test results, and 14 of them died due to COVID-related causes; the IFR was 0.5% for ages 60-69, 2.9% for ages 70-79, and 7.9% for ages 80+, broadly consistent with the metaregression results of this study. Moreover, the metaregression predicts an IFR of 0.3% for ages 50-59 years, but Diamond Princess had only 60 infected individuals in that age group, and hence the lack of fatalities within that particular age cohort is not inconsistent with the metaregression results.

It should also be noted that the pathbreaking study of Ferguson et al. (2020) is broadly consistent with the metaregression results reported here. That study was completed at a very early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing on data from expatriation flights to estimate infection rates in Wuhan and then computing age-specific IFRs based on reported fatalities in Wuhan. The resulting IFR estimates exhibited an exponential link to age, with rates near zero for ages 0-39 and far higher rates for older adults.

As shown in Figure 5, the metaregression explains a large fraction of the variations in population-level IFRs across geographical locations. This relationship can be documented quantitatively as follows: where IFR_i denotes the IFR for each location i, computed using the observed fatalities in conjunction with estimated prevalence, while denotes the predicted IFR for that location computed using the metaregression estimates for age-specific IFRs in conjunction with age-specific prevalence. The regression has R² = 0.88, indicating that nearly 90% of the variation in population IFR across geographical locations can be explained in terms of differences in the age structure of the population and the age-specific prevalence of COVID-19.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5:

Variations in population IFR across geographical locations

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6:

Forest plot of metaregression data

Discussion

Our analysis indicates that COVID-19 poses a very low risk for children and younger adults but is hazardous for middle-aged adults and extremely dangerous for older adults. Table 4 contextualize these risks by comparing the age-specific IFRs from our meta-regression analysis to the annualized risk of a fatal auto accident or other accidental injury. For a young adult, the fatality risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection is roughly comparable to the risks associated with engaging in other everyday activities. By contrast, an 60-year-old adult who gets infected faces a fatality risk more than 50 times higher than the annual fatality risk of driving an automobile.

Our analysis facilitates comparisons between the COVID-19 pandemic and the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-20. The U.S. CDC estimates that about 28% of the U.S. population was infected by the Spanish Flu and that the death toll was about 675,000. However, that disease was most dangerous for young adults, with an IFR of about 4% for people ages 20 to 40 years old but caused relatively few deaths among middle-aged and older adults—the age groups that are most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Our meta-regression analysis confirms that COVID-19 is far more deadly than seasonal flu. The U.S. CDC estimates that during winter 2018-19 influenza was associated with about 50 million infections and 34,000 fatalities, that is, an overall IFR of about 0.07%. By comparison, recent seroprevalence data from U.S. public health laboratories indicates that more than 25 million people (that is, 8% of the U.S. population) had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the last ten days of July.⁸⁸ Cumulative U.S. fatalities were close to 170,000 as of August 14 (three weeks after the midpoint date of the seroprevalence data). These figures indicate that the population IFR of COVID-19 is currently about 0.6%, roughly ten times more deadly than seasonal flu.²³

Nonetheless, the current level of the overall U.S. IFR should not be interpreted as a fixed parameter. Rather, our meta-analysis clearly underscores the rationale for public health measures and communications aimed at reducing the aggregate IFR by mitigating the incidence of new COVID-19 infections among middle-aged and older adults.⁸⁹ To illustrate these considerations, Table 5 outlines three alternative scenarios for the U.S. trajectory of COVID-19 infections and fatalities. All three scenarios assume that the infection rate continues rising to a plateau of around 20% (similar to the prevalence observed in New York City as of late spring). However, the age-specific infection rates vary markedly across the three scenarios:

• Scenario #1 assumes that age-specific prevalence will remain similar to the average pattern that has prevailed to date, as indicated by seroprevalence data from U.S. public health laboratories.

• Scenario #2 assumes that the prevalence will eventually become uniform across all age groups, similar to the Spanish Flu pandemic and seasonal influenza.

• Scenario #3 assumes that public health measures and communications will restrain the incidence of new infections among middle-aged and older adults while prevalence continues rising more rapidly among children and younger adults.

To assess the implications of these three alternative assumptions, we use the age-specific IFRs from our meta-regression analysis to determine the death toll for each age group as follows:

Scenario #1 shows that, if the current age-specific infection pattern continues until 20% of the U.S. is infected, deaths will increase by a factor of 2 to around 375,000. The outcome is far worse in Scenario #2, where the virus spreads uniformly across age groups and causes nearly 525,000 fatalities—nearly the same death toll as the Spanish Flu, though only one-third as large on a per capita basis. Finally, Scenario #3 is associated with a far lower proportion of older adults contracting the virus, and the total number of fatalities is held to about 235,000.

Of course, if COVID-19 were allowed to become even more prevalent among the elderly, as in some geographical locations, the United States could end up with an even higher population IFR. Conversely, policy measures and communications that protect vulnerable age groups could halve the overall IFR to around 0.3% and prevent about 150,000 U.S. deaths relative to the baseline in which the virus continues spreading with roughly the same age-specific prevalence that has been observed to date.

Directions for Further Research

While age and fatality risk are closely related, differences in the age structure of the population and age-specific infection rates surely cannot explain all deviations in IFR across regions and populations. Consequently, the role of co-morbidities and other demographic and socioeconomic factors merits further research that carefully distinguishes between infection risk and IFR.

A recent U.K. study has shown that COVID-19 mortality outcomes are strongly linked to comorbidities such as chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and obesity.⁹⁰ However, that study specifically warns against drawing causal conclusions from those findings, which may reflect a higher incidence of COVID-19 rather than a higher IFR for individuals with those comorbidities. Indeed, a separate study of hospitalized U.K. COVID-19 patients found that patient age was far more important than any specific comorbidity in determining mortality risk.⁹¹ For example, the COVID-19 fatality risk for an obese 40-year-old hospital patient was found to be moderately higher than for a non-obese individual of the same cohort but only one-tenth the fatality risk for a non-obese 75-year-old hospital patient.

The high prevalence of comorbidities among COVID-19 patients has been well documented but not compared systematically to the prevalence of such comorbidities in the general population. For example, one recent study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York City (NYC) reported that 94% of those patients had at least one chronic health condition.⁹² Nevertheless, as discussed in Appendix E, that finding is not particularly surprising given the prevalence of comorbidities among middle-aged and elderly NYC residents. For example, nearly 30% of older NYC adults (ages 60+) are diabetic, while 23% have cardiovascular disease (including hypertension), and 8% have chronic pulmonary diseases—practically identical to the incidence of those comorbidities in the sample of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Indeed, obesity was the only comorbidity that was much more prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients than in the general population of older NYC adults. Nonetheless, obesity is also much more prevalent among lower-income groups who are more likely to live in high-density neighborhoods and work in high-exposure jobs, and hence such data clearly cannot be used to distinguish prevalence vs. severity of COVID-19.

Our meta-analysis has not directly considered the extent to which IFRs may vary with other demographic factors, including race and ethnicity. Fortunately, 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.⁹³

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.⁴² 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.” Other researchers have 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.⁹⁴

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.

Declaration

The authors have no financial interests nor any other conflicts of interest related to this study. No funding was received for conducting this study. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of any other person or institution.