> I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.. http

> I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont.... I would be careful about generalizing results from that particular study as 99.5% of the workers sampled were under the age of 70. If your sampled population does not include the most vulnerable age groups then of course your fatality rate will be lower than normal. > There’s other highly tested populations with lower CFRs and then there’s IFR estimates based on serology and indirect estimates on CFR that slew much lower than 1% I'm curious what you mean by "much lower"? Some of the antibody studies published recently have found prevalence rates that were not much higher than the false positive rates for the test, making confidence in their results somewhat dubious. In studies where the prevalence has been higher (e.g. NYC, Geneva), the IFR is trending towards 0.5-1%. This meta-analysis was published yesterday which suggests an IFR of 0.75% (CI: 0.49-1.01%): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...