Infection Fatality Risk Study from Switzerland

2,632 Views | 8 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by culdeus
Ranger222
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The infection fatality risk (IFR) is the average number of deaths per infection by a pathogen and is key to characterizing the severity of infection across the population and for specific demographic groups. To date, there are few empirical estimates of IFR published due to challenges in measuring infection rates.1,2 Outside of closed, closely surveilled populations where infection rates can be monitored through viral surveillance, we must rely on indirect measures of infection, like specific antibodies. Representative seroprevalence studies provide an important avenue for estimating the number of infections in a community, and when combined with death counts can lead to robust estimates of the IFR.

We estimated overall and age-specific IFR for the canton of Geneva, Switzerland using age-stratified daily case and death incidence reports combined with five weekly population-based seroprevalence estimates.3 From February 24th to June 2nd there were 5'039 confirmed cases and 286 reported deaths within Geneva (population of 506'765). We inferred age-stratified (5-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-65 and 65+) IFRs by linking the observed number of deaths to the estimated number of infected individuals from each serosurvey. We account for the delays between infection and seroconversion as well as between infection and death.4 Inference is drawn in a Bayesian framework that incorporates uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates (supplement).

Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).

Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards.5

Estimates of IFR are key for understanding the true pandemic burden and for weighing different risk reduction strategies. The IFR is not solely determined by host and pathogen biology, but also by the capacity of health systems to treat severe cases. Despite having among the highest per capita incidence in Switzerland, Geneva's health system accommodated the influx of cases needing intensive care (peak of 80/110 ICU-beds including surge capacity) while maintaining care quality standards. As such, our IFR estimates can be seen as a best-case scenario with respect to health system capacity. Our results reveal that population-wide estimates of IFR mask great heterogeneity by age and point towards the importance of age-targeted interventions to reduce exposures among those at highest risk of death.

Table with results --



https://osf.io/wdbpe/


Sq 17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again the ".6%" IFR shows up
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wish that 65+ was broke out even more
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
0 deaths under 20. 2 under 50.
DCAggie13y
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Virginia is about the same population as Switzerland and we have also had zero deaths under the age of 20 and only 2 deaths under the age of 30. We have had 49 deaths between the ages of 30 and 50 but I have to assume the average Virginian is not as healthy as the average Swiss citizen.
Scotts Tot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not a statistician, but how can the IFR <20 be greater than 0 if there were no deaths in the sample population? Do they extrapolate that number somehow?
dragmagpuff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FlyFisher09 said:

I'm not a statistician, but how can the IFR <20 be greater than 0 if there were no deaths in the sample population? Do they extrapolate that number somehow?
You can't assume that the the actually infected population is representative of the whole population when the death count is so low.

There are are bound to be some extremely at risk kids that COVID could kill. We've seen it in other countries. It's very, very, rare.

I'm not sure how they determined the upper bound of their CI though.
CompEvoBio94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a Bayesian analysis, which means that that start with a probability distribution over plausible values of IFR before the data is analyzed. It's wise to pay more attention to the credible intervals (the CrI values) rather than the point estimates. A range of small, but non-zero values of IFR are plausible a priori and consistent with no deaths in their sample. If you agree with their model and their prior probability distribution there is a 95% chance that the IFR < 0.019% for ages 5-9 and a 95% chance that the IFR is <0.0033 for the 10-19 year olds.

A quick and dirty (and non-Bayesian) way to get a reasonable point estimate of a proportion is:

estimate of proportion = (the number of positives+2)/(number of trials + 4)

That actually gets pretty close to their point estimates.
Honky Tonk Hero
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good news!

Seems to me we need to:
- continue to use social distance measures (including masks) to keep spread manageable
- continue measured reopening
- monitor hospital usage to ensure we don't overwhelm (adjust if needed)
- be extra cautious around high risk individuals
culdeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FlyFisher09 said:

I'm not a statistician, but how can the IFR <20 be greater than 0 if there were no deaths in the sample population? Do they extrapolate that number somehow?


For privacy reasons they only list the count if there are 5+ deaths and the ifr is normalized not based on the raw count where this happens. I am stating this off memory and I would probably fact check this.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.