Estimating area-level variation in SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality ratios
Ladau, J.; Kuo, C.; Brodie, E. L.; Falco, N.; Bansal, I.; Hoffman, E. B.; Joachimiak, M. P.; Mora, A. M.; Walker, A. M.; Wainwright, H. M.; Wu, Y.; Jacobson, D.; Hess, M.; Brown, J. B.; Abuabara, K.
Show abstract
BackgroundDuring a pandemic, estimates of geographic variability in disease burden are important but limited by the availability and quality of data. MethodsWe propose a framework for estimating geographic variability in testing effort, total number of infections, and infection fatality ratio (IFR). Because symptomatic people are more likely to seek testing, we use a noncentral hypergeometric model that accounts for differential probability of positive tests. We apply this framework to the United States (U.S.) COVID-19 pandemic to estimate county-level SARS-CoV-2 IFRs from March 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020. Using data on population size, number of observed cases, number of reported deaths in each U.S. county and state, and number of tests in each U.S. state, we develop a series of estimators to identify the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and IFRs at the county level. We then perform a simulation and compare the estimated values to simulated values to demonstrate the validity of our approach. FindingsApplying the county-level estimators to the real, unsimulated COVID-19 data spanning March 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020 from across the U.S., we found that IFRs varied from 0 to 0.0273, with an interquartile range of 0.0022 and a median of 0.0018. The estimators for IFRs, number of infections, and number of tests showed high accuracy and precision; for instance, when applied to simulated validation data sets, across counties, Pearson correlation coefficients between estimator means and true values were 0.88, 0.95, and 0.74, respectively. InterpretationWe propose an estimation framework that can be used to identify area-level variation in IFRs and performs well to estimate county-level IFRs in the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 95%
- Estimation of Vaccine Efficacy for Variants that Emerge After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated 94%
- HIV Estimation Using Population-Based Surveys With Non-Response: A Partial Identification Approach * 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Bayesian Susceptible-Infectious-Hospitalized-Ventilated-Recovered Model to Predict Demand for COVID-19 Inpatient Care in a Large Healthcare System 97%
- Which COVID policies are most effective? A Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 by jurisdiction 96%
- Tracking R of COVID-19: A New Real-Time Estimation Using the Kalman Filter 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.