Talk:List of human disease case fatality rates

Inclusion of conditions or not
Hi, I am allowing myself to put that discussion topic in 1st position (at time of writing) because it has potential implications on the article/page title. I have added the term "condition" -I think it is the most appropriate/accurate term?!- in a couple of prominent places as it matches certain listed medically-impacting processes/states/conditions/... (whatever you want to call it) like aging, maleness, etc... a bit more accurately than "disease" imho. Maybe the article/page title should be altered to reflect that as well but 1. maybe the page title is still fine as it is and 2. if the page title is not fine any more I don't really have the rights/time/willingness/etc... to have such level of involvement with Wikipedia so as to change article names. So I will let Wikipedians who are more involved than me decide on that. Up to you to carry on discussing this topic (likely without me) guys and to act relevantly upon it if/when deemed appropriate/necessary, thank you :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I vote that this page should stick to conditions which are considered medically abnormal and detrimental such as infectious diseases and genetic disorders. So, while things such as aging and maleness do have detrimental effects on life expectancy, neither is an abnormal condition. A healthy person can age and be male, but a person with cancer isn't considered healthy. I would also reject the addition of conditions such as gangrene or septic which come about as the result of physical trauma as opposed to infection or genetics (though I'm not aware of any such conditions being on the list currently). I don't want to delete anything from the page before getting some more input on this. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi :) Thank you very much for your input :) Well conditions like aging and maleness have shown to be very detrimental when dealing with Covid-19 for example. So yes aging and maleness are detrimental conditions, the scientific evidence on that is overwhelming. It is of course not abnormal to age or be a male, but it is abnormal to be more vulnerable to certain diseases and/or to death in general simply because you are older or you are a male or whichever other conditions you are subjected to which makes you medically weaker than other people who are not or less subjected to these conditions. Obviously if a condition is not detrimental it should not be on this page. But aging and maleness are medically detrimental conditions and have abnormal medical negative consequences compared with people who are not/less subjected to these conditions so imho these medically detrimental conditions should be listed on this page. And especially aging and maleness which medically speaking are extremely impacting including in terms of susceptibility to death. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This conversation has been had elsewhere. "A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition." So, even if we included medical conditions under the umbrella of "diseases", things such as aging and maleness don't qualify. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for your interesting and well argued answer :) Nonetheless we are disagreeing on this. One reference does not give you the right to unilaterally delete large parts of an article before building (a preferably large) Consensus first, thank you :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My main argument about the issue we are discussing is that some conditions might indeed be "within the range of normal human variation" but some of these conditions have abnormal negative medical consequences compared to people who are not or less subjected to these conditions. So these conditions should imho be listed in this article, specially the ones which are extremely impacting medically speaking including in terms of susceptibility to death which is what this article is all about. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw, if close to 50% (from which percentage do you actually enter "the range of normal human variation"?) or even 99.99% or even 100% of people would be obese, making obesity well "within the range of normal human variation", would you remove it from the list? (it's not in there yet but obviously obesity should be in the list while it is not yet "within the range of normal human variation" and there are lots of people with your argument around lol (although I think it might already be "within the range of normal human variation" or very close to now!)) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Can someone back me up here? Aging and maleness aren't diseases and therefore don't fit the criteria to be included. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To make things very clear, as people can check in my argumentation above, I have never said aging and maleness are diseases but that they are conditions that make people subjected to them more exposed to a premature death. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to let you and other people know I am a transhumanist and a singularitarian (but please don't use the technological singularity in your counter-argument yet but please feel free to use transhumanism in your counter-argument (if you have any counter-argument) as then I will have many counter-counter-arguments to develop). I might develop that line of argumentation later if really necessary if/when I have a bit more time (I wish I had brain implants that would help me doing the argumentation much more quickly!). I don't think I will need to develop that line of argumentation anyway because your argumentation seems to hold little water imho and I don't think your argumentation will convince many people (maybe in the 1950's (specially before 1953 and 1956) but not in the 2020's and even less so in the late 2020's) but let's see. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think those things are relevant to this discussion. The topic of discussion is pretty simple. What is the purpose of this page, and do aging and maleness fit within that purpose? I say the purpose is to list human disease case fatality rates and no, aging and maleness aren't diseases. You say the purpose is to list detrimental "conditions" and that aging and maleness fit the bill. Cybernetic augmentation is way out of left field. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again :) I have already answered a few times your "aging and maleness aren't diseases" argument so I invite you to read my counter-arguments to it above because if not it's going to be a bit repetitive ;) I am afraid you are very wrong about "Cybernetic augmentation is way out of left field.": please check: implant (medicine) :) Please, if you can, provide better arguments to make this debate more interesting :) Unfortunately for you I think you are fighting a lost cause, I think this is a debate which you have no chance to win in 2020. But let's see. Try again, but with better arguments please :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've responded to my argument. You haven't really countered it though. You asked, "if close to 50% ... or even 99.99% or even 100% of people would be obese, making obesity well 'within the range of normal human variation', would you remove it from the list?" My answer is yes. If we don't stick to the definition, then we don't have a topic, we have a mess. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious?! You would remove obesity from the list, the day 50% of people are obese? Please can you confirm your answer on that because it sounds unbelievable to me. You can just answer "yes" to confirm your stance on that. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a disease is roughly defined as a detrimental condition which isn't within the usual range of variation, and if over 50% of people were obese, then obesity wouldn't fit the definition and shouldn't be included. Even now, it's arguable if it should be included since it could be seen as a psychiatric disorder, which is often contrasted with diseases in medical texts such as the DSM 5 or this website. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Omg, it sounds surreal to me, I love it now thank you so much, I am having so much fun now thanks to our debate (I am really genuine thank you, I love absurdism) :))) Please let's continue! So would you put obesity back in the list again if, after having been above 50%, it went down to 49.99%? 86.129.117.3 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Being male or female is clearly "within the usual range of variation", but you can't have more than 50% of both. The exact point at which something is no longer "within the usual range of variation" is more of a gut check than a hard limit, as is often the case when attempting to nail down an exact definition for a term. Crash Course (YouTube) did a fairly good job of explaining this concept in their philosophy series . BlackEyedGhost (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love it! Thank you so much :))) OK let's carry on having fun with that! You personally, what is your gut instinct on that set point? 45%? 40%? 35%? ... 5%? ...? I want your personal gut instinct please, answer with a number (%), whichever you think would be reasonable. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Started a new indent because it was getting too far right) Now that I'm considering it more in-depth, I think a more longitudinal approach works better. If, for example, a disease infected the entire world population at a single point in time, it doesn't stop being a disease just because so many people have it at that time. It's a disease because (a) it's detrimental and (b) over the course of human history, it's outside the normal range of variation. In that way, obesity seems reasonable to keep on the list, even if it affected more than 50% of people at a single point in history. However, if it was that widespread for the entirety of human history, I wouldn't consider it worthy of being on the list (this also doesn't affect the psychiatric disorder argument). So, looking at it from an "all of human history" standpoint, I'd give a gut-check of maybe 5% (just a guess with no real calculation used), so that common diseases like cancer, heart disease, and the flu can fit the bill. Infant mortality might complicate things a bit, but due to short lifespan and the additional vagueness of when personhood begins, it might not affect the percentage much on a longitudinal scale. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry BlackEyedGhost but you ended into the moving the goalposts logical fallacy so you have now lost your argument hence organismal senescence and biological maleness must stay in the list :) You are checkmate! It was a bit too easy to be honest, but it was fun nonetheless, thanks a lot :) I recommend you to read and learn much more things from Wikipedia and you will become a better debater, we are all in here to progress and hopefully live very very very very very... long healthy lives maybe almost infinitely long full of fun debates like this one without having to be subjected to organismal senescence! Let's be positive :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't move the goalposts at all. I used the same definition. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now it's getting pathetic, please do not embarrass yourself! I am stopping here because I have overwhelmingly won the argument as everybody can see and check. Organismal senescence and biological maleness must stay in the list. Have a nice night (and/or day) :) And please be careful because if you insist on removing things from Wikipedia which should be there, then when the AI's are coming, they might not be very nice to you who knows :p But hopefully they will be nice with everybody and allow each of us to choose if we want to die from organismal senescence or not! Good night and sweet dreams :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insults. Let's put it this way. You said "I have never said aging and maleness are diseases". Sounds like a consensus to me. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No insult anywhere (at least in my own culture) but if you feel anything was insulting, I am sorry and I withdraw what you consider as insults (as long as it is not the "insult" of you having lost the argument ;p ) I like you a lot and it was fun but it's getting late... and you know... lack of sleep... organismal senescence... we must be careful with that :p Have a nice night and sweet dreams :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And now you are deleting stuff which is under discussion (that you lost) without having reached a Consensus first, I am not wasting my time with this for sure, I have more interesting things to do! Good night and sweet dreams :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed stuff that you added without reaching a Consensus. It's a revert due to lack of consensus, not a delete of material which was already under consensus. We seemed to have reached a consensus that they're not diseases and that's what the page is about, so removing it seems appropriate at this point, though in practice my original reversion never should have been undone because the material wasn't under consensus. Another user reverted several of your changes for similar reasons. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are moving the goalposts again lol! :) It's your thing it seems! :p Ok enough fun for tonight but thank you for the laugh and all the absurdism I really enjoyed it :) Good night and sweet dreams :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 86.129.117.3, you are in violation of the Civility and No personal attacks policies. Your behavior and sarcasm towards BlackEyedGhost, including indirectly claiming their opinion constitutes absurdism and claiming "victory" over an argument, is insulting and not welcome on Wikipedia. You must refrain from making disrespectful remarks like these, and comment on the content, not the contributor. In addition, you have been undoing edits to protect your version of the article without establishing consensus, which, if it continues, may eventually qualify as edit warring, which is serious. If you do not cease this behavior, I'm afraid I'll need to make a report at the appropriate incident noticeboard(s). Thank you. MrSwagger21 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I second MrSwagger. Please calm down, 86.129.117.3.
 * Note that, irrespective of whether non-disease conditions are included in this list, the CFR for maleness is likely impermissible per policy on original research. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Offering a fourth or fifth opinion, the addition of risk factors that do not fit the definition of infectious disease is not helpful on this page. Neither maleness nor obesity, for example, are usefully discussed here. Indeed it might be better to change the name of the page to List of case fatality rates in human infectious disease. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys are all about constantly moving the goalposts lol! 3rd time you are doing it! It's getting crazy to be honest! So now it has become about restricting even more to infectious diseases! The goalposts are shrinking like crazy! Soon the void! I hope you have enough humor to appreciate the sarcasm without being offended! We are all in it for the fun, aren't we (or is any of you being paid to do all this "work")?! 86.129.117.3 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 86.129.117.3, this is your last warning. The next time you are incivil or attack other editors, you will be reported to an administrator without further notice. MrSwagger21 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gosh you are easily offended MrSwagger21. You seem to have no sense of humor at all. Relax man! May I ask you which country you are from? 86.129.117.3 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dafuq did I just read? 147.226.230.176 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Distinction / structuration / styling / etc... between diseases and conditions inside article
I have made a couple of edits to try to introduce some distinction / structuration / styling / etc... between diseases and conditions inside the article but all theses edits have been reverted by User:MrSwagger21. So my questions to User:MrSwagger21 and other people are: 1. Do you think it would be good idea to introduce some distinction / structuration / styling / etc... between diseases and conditions inside the article? 2. Why (not)? 3. If yes then how? 86.129.117.3 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your questions. The reason I reverted your edits is because they did not conform to some of Wikipedia’s guidelines. MOS:COLOR states that color should not be the only way of highlighting something. “Disease” and “condition” don’t really need to be indicated or distinct in this article since they are what the article is about; that is why we have lead sections. Also, your linking didn’t follow the guidelines (See MOS:OL, MOS:UL, and MOS:DL). Links should not be repeated in an article and two links should not direct to the same article. The two words don’t really need linking in the first place because they are words that we can reasonably expect readers to know if they are reading this article in the first place. To answer your specific question, no, there is no need to create distinction between “disease” and “condition”. It may help to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, see WP:Getting started. Also, please consider making an account, it has many benefits and allows others to communicate with you better. I think you’re off to a great start. Remember to sign your messages using four tildes (~), and happy editing! MrSwagger21 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks a lot for your input :) About creating an account sorry I am not interested in that. As a general rule I try to create the least amount possibles of accounts / registrations with anything (except in the very rare cases where I want to muddle things a bit but this is very rare) so I make no exception for Wikipedia although I have made 1000's of edits over many years, I even have a personal MediaWiki instance on some device of mine for my own use/experimentation (for many years) so I don't really consider myself as a beginner but I don't mind being considered as one I have no problem with that, always a good thing to be reminded of the basics so many thanks for that :) Talking about basics I indeed didn't know all these details about color and link use so many thanks for pointing them to me, I will try to remember these for the future thank you :) On the more fundamental question about the distinction between disease and condition so I understand that your position is that it is not necessary to make it because people reading this article will already know about it. I think that might not be the case, I would be curious to know what the percentage of people stumbling on and reading this article knows the difference between a disease and a condition but my 1st guess it that it is well below 50% don't you think? Also if you look at the discussion above, someone is actually making a strong distinction between diseases and conditions even arguing that some conditions which are not abnormal (but result in abnormal medical consequences) should not be included. So I thought, at least for this reason, having a way to distinguish conditions from diseases in the table would have been a beneficial thing to do and adding "Condition" in the type content where relevant would have allowed readers/editors to immediately spot conditions and also being able to gather them simply by sorting the table using the "Type" column. Personally I think that distinction would be useful and interesting to make so I think it is clear we disagree on that (which happens, no problem at all) at least at this point in time (cf. my signature timestamp). So I would be interested to have the opinions of other people on this topics please many thanks for your input and comments always very interesting and useful and enlightening to read of course :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your response. I have added a request for a third opinion so we can hopefully resolve this and come to a consensus. Thanks, and sorry if I mistook you for a new Wikipedian! MrSwagger21 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For this particular article, I don't see much benefit in adding more detail to the list simply for the purpose of distinguishing conditions and diseases. As MrSwagger21 said, the lead section is the only place where adding such a distinction might be worth doing. However, the article currently starts by stating it is "a list of human disease and condition case fatality rates", indicating that some may be diseases, others conditions, but this article doesn't fuss much with the distinction. The page for disease is also linked already, which includes a definition of both "disease" and "medical condition", so anyone can familiarize themselves if they don't understand the distinction. This article was originally about diseases and I think that's where the focus ought to remain. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello thank you for your well-argued answer :) Nonetheless I carry on disagreeing with that and carry on to think that a clearer distinction between diseases and conditions would be useful and interesting for most readers and editors too. If this distinction is not worth doing then by extension the distinction between different types of diseases is not worth doing neither I guess because for most readers the disease type is obvious as well right? Actually by extension no distinction is necessary for anything because everything is obvious for anybody who is a bit knowledgeable so I suggest we delete the whole Wikipedia site entirely, there is nothing on Wikipedia that someone with a minimum of knowledge already knows about right? (this argument is mostly aimed at MrSwagger21 ;p) ) I am being cheeky of course but you get my point. I see that I find myself in a current minority opinion about expressing the distinction between conditions and diseases inside this article and I accept that so I will (for now at least) not make any edit in this article to underline that distinction. But I would be interested to check if other people would like to influence the Consensus on that so please "other people" do not hesitate to give your opinion on that matter thank you very much guys :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just infectious diseases
This page is of diseases, not just infectious diseases. There is no reason to delete all non-infectious diseases. Cancer, aging, and genetic disorders are all highly relevant and researched conditions. It is not right to unilaterally limit the focus of the page. If the list could benefit from different sections, organization, etc, go ahead and add that. But don't just delete a bunch of stuff. -Dodecahedron123 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at discussions below, you'll see several posts about this, including a section from 2014 stating that the table was at that time infectious diseases only. If you wish to include non-infectious diseases, please explain your reasoning so we can establish some form of criteria for what goes on the list. Given that infectious diseases were the only thing on the list prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the pandemic brings controversy which hadn't previously affected this page, I'm inclined to stick with the infectious disease only criteria. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One post from 6 years ago is not a consensus. My reasoning is that a disease does not need to be infectious to be a disease. A disease is a deleterious condition that reduces human life or function; it doesn't have to be communicable to meet those criteria. I have no idea what COVID-19 has to do with this. It's infectious, so include it. But also include cancer and other non-infectious diseases. If you want a list of infectious disease only, then I suggest List of human infectious disease case fatality ratios.-Dodecahedron123 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the only post above. Richard Keatinge also agreed that the page should be restricted to infectious diseases. Adrian J. Hunter stated that maleness isn't permissible on the grounds of Wikipedia's policy on original research. There was also a long discussion in which myself and an IP-address user (who I suspect is you), agreed that maleness and aging aren't diseases. If you take issue with the removal of cancer, Tay-Sachs, and Fibromyalga, we can request a third opinion. But please don't continue reverting the entire page, including the minor improvements and removal of non-contentious non-diseases. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the IP user, and making insinuations is not appropriate. This isn't a matter of counting opinions. It's a matter of what is a disease. If I look up cancer, it's defined as a disease (OK, group of diseases, but nothing is stopping someone from breaking it out by type of cancer). And same for the others. I agree, maleness is not a disease. Aging is controversial, but there is enough recognition of it as a disease to warrant its inclusion, even if opinion is not unanimous. You can always add a note that it is not universally considered a disease, rather than deleting it entirely.-Dodecahedron123 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that few non-infectious diseases have defined case fatality rates in the literature. It's seldom a useful concept for them - the five-year survival often used for cancers, for example, is not the same at all, and I've yet to see or hear of a meaningful use of the term applied to aging. Whereas with infectious diseases it's often used. Your suggested rename strikes me as a good idea - does anyone feel like going ahead and renaming the article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support the rename idea. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Just because "few" non-infectious diseases have a defined case fatality rate doesn't mean we should ignore their existence entirely.-Dodecahedron123 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not just that they don't have such rates. The entire concept is of little practical use for them. Where the concept is meaningful, it would be appropriate for an encyclopaedia to discuss these rates in the articles of those diseases. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked back at the sources used for Tay-Sachs, cancer , anorexia , and Fibrodysplasia . Of them, none mentioned case fatality rates specifically. Anorexia did calculate a figure resembling case fatality rates, but the main measure seemed to be "standardized mortality rate". If there is a counter-example of a non-infectious disease which uses a well-defined case mortality rate, then I might be persuaded to change my stance, but in the absence of a strong counterexample, I still support the rename idea. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing that line of thought, I may have found a strong enough counter-example. Anaphylaxis has a well-defined case fatality rate which is very useful, but allergies (which are referred to as "allergic diseases" on the Wiki page) aren't infectious. So the question isn't really if non-infectious diseases have a useful case fatality rate, but whether this page wants to include them. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was on the verge of suggesting a rename to "List of human infectious disease case fatality rates" myself, but I see you're right about anaphylaxis, and that several sources describe CFRs for it . So I don't think we need to delimit the scope of this page, just properly uphold the policy on original research.  CFR is a technical term with a specific meaning; it's not meant for comparing the danger posed by all possible causes of death.  So it's not appropriate for contributors to devise their own metrics for calculating CFR for maleness, aging or cancer.  The criterion for inclusion should just be whether reliable sources explicitly apply the term "case fatality rate" to the condition. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am personally of course against the shrinking of the scope to infectious diseases only! Some rightly frustrated Wikipedia editors (like me) will rightly always constantly want to add diseases and conditions which are not classified as infectious to this article and if they can't, they will complain about it and be frustrated, so this page should not be restricted to infectious diseases which is only a narrow arbitrary subset of all diseases and conditions! Wikipedia is about knowledge! 86.129.117.3 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge, sounds like you're the only one whose stance is unclear at this point. I find "human disease" and an explicit reference to "case fatality rate" in the reference to be good criteria. "Human disease" is the scope and requiring a good reference is just restating Wikipedia's original research policy. If this is the consensus, I'd like to create a section at the top of this talk page to explain the issue to new editors. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You may note that I left Reye's syndrome in for the time being. But it leaves the article less useful, because while individual non-infectious diseases do have CFRs, comparing CFRs between different diseases as this page does is pretty much only done for infectious diseases. We could, as several editors have suggested over the years and as good sources generally do when making this sort of comparison, usefully limit the scope to infectious disease. But if there's a consensus to use "human disease" and an explicit reference to "case fatality rate" as criteria, that's at least narrowly defensible. And some editors may be less frustrated. I merely suggest that the page will be less useful as a result. We are here to organize human knowledge, not dump it in ill-considered heaps.
 * If there is nevertheless a consensus to include non-infectious disease, may I suggest that those diseases should be given their own separate section and table? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a consensus on the scope of the article then. With that settled, if you want to separate the non-infectious into its own section, I say be bold. It will be a fairly short section at first, but as the list fills out (and I plan to start working on that) it should make itself at home. We of course want the list to be as useful as possible and I think your suggestion strikes a good balance. Just using the type and notes columns would do a poor job of filtering the list for useful comparison. A new column might also work, but if we keep adding columns we'll clutter it up and squish the notes column into oblivion. Thanks to everyone who took part in these discussions and/or has contributed to the article! BlackEyedGhost (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate tables for infectious and non-infectious diseases sounds good to me. Though if anaphylaxis is the only compliant non-infectious example we have, I'd be fine with leaving non-infectious diseases out. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, two separate tables would make it manageable. I hope I don't need to reinforce the point that OR and, for example, strange attempts to define a case fatality ratio for old age, belong nowhere in any encyclopaedia. The place for those would be on your own blog. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I agree with you above i.e. if I understand well, separate tables for infectious and non-infectious diseases so I'm very happy we've found an intelligent consensus on the issue, it has been a long, interesting and in the end rewarding process so it's all good, I am having lots of fun with you guys I hope you too :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless as you can imagine, I am not very satisfied with one thing which seems that aging is going to fall into oblivion from this article, and this makes me sad ,(. So I have created a new discussion topic called The "special" case of aging where who ever wants can come and have lots of intelligent fun debating about this "hot" "special" topic which is all about life, death and hopefully biological immortality for those of us like me who are not very happy about currently being subjected to organismal senescence and who would be very happy to be cured from it! 86.129.117.3 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

{|

Infectious diseases only
As at 6 October 2014, all entries in the table were for infectious diseases (virus, bacterial, protozoan, prion etc.) bar one: abdominal aortic aneurysm. I think it's odd to have a list of CFRs that includes both infectious and non-infectious conditions, especially if the non-infectious conditions don't include the most common causes of death such as other cardiovascular conditions and cancer. For this reason I have removed abdominal aortic aneurysm from the list and added a note to the effect that the list only includes infectious diseases. miracleworker5263 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Type of disease
Shouldn’t this list include the type of disease that causes the fatalities? Examples: viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitical, genetic disorder, etc. This may help readers understand the content better. MrSwagger21 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with that. Specially for example the column "IFR" probably only applies to some types of disease (for example I don't think it applies to genetic disorders). So if I were you I would be bold and go ahead and add a "Disease type" column. I would put it in second position (=second column). I don't see on which grounds people could object to that. Imho the only possible downside would be "column crowding" but we are still within reason in terms of number of columns and that column should not take that much width. Also one of the sleek things about that is people will then be able to sort the table by disease type so this is an added bonus. So imho yes please do it (maybe wait a couple of days for other possible opinions before going ahead). 86.129.117.3 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been added, thanks. You can take a look if you want. Still needs some filling in, unsure how to define the types of certain diseases, for example those resulting from amoebae or roundworms. Might need linking as well. MrSwagger21 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, it obviously cannot be perfect straight away but it is already very good imho and it is a great base to work from, well done imho, loving it, I am sure loads of other people are loving (/will love) it, thanks a lot :))) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lafora disease always fatal 92.12.80.118 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of aging/organismal senescence
• So basically, correct me if I'm wrong, but the currently agreed reasonable criteria for inclusion in the list is to be a human disease to have an explicit reference to a CFR. • So 1st, to be precise in terms of what aging currently precisely refers to in terms of medical condition: it is organismal senescence. • My argument is that 1. Organismal senescence is indeed a disease (and hence I am now having a bolder position on that than I used to have before indeed for the sake of clarifying the debate as best as it is possible) and 2. that its CFR is currently self-evident i.e. it is currently 100% and that we can easily find references that organismal senescence has a 100% CFR (even if it is not spelled "CFR" in the reference(s) but basically means strictly the same as "100% CFR"). So on that basis I argue that organismal senescence should be reincluded in the list with a CFR of (currently) 100%. • Does anybody want to contradict me on that? If not then let's reinsert organismal senescence in the list (in the non-infectious disease table) :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this change.-Dodecahedron123 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a killjoy, but the aim of Wikipedia is not for editors to have fun on talk pages or elsewhere. It is easily verifiable that sensible sources do not find the concept of CFR useful in the case of aging. And, per WP:SKYBLUE, we don't need to point out that organismal senescence has a 100% CFR. Joy is good, so are word games, but please play them elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya :) This discussion is not about if the "CFR is useful" for organismal senescence, the discussion is about if organismal senescence has a CFR. Yes it has one. It is currently 100%. But in a few years' time, maybe late 2020's, it might fall down below 100% and eventually to 0%. So actually the fact that organismal senescence CFR might vary (and probably will, lots of people are motivated for that, including myself) makes it objectively very interesting and very useful. Mmmh, it's a pity you don't like being playful, because it's good way for children but also adults to learn (new) things but maybe I am a bit of a Peter Panner :P OK let's stop playing sorry. Your turn... 86.129.117.3 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's time to drop the stick and find some other place to play. The concept of CFR for senescence is not useful for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a reliable source that provides a CFR for aging, then we can't include one per WP:OR. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK so one of you is saying "Per WP:SKYBLUE, we don't need to point out that organismal senescence has a 100% CFR" but the other is saying "Provide a reliable source that provides a CFR for aging, if not it's WP:OR". So now you have to agree between each other so we can carry on this discussion. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please recognize the consensus is against you, and just drop it. Or, as I say, take it to your own blog. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1+1=2. 2=2. There is no consensus for now. 86.129.117.3 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Check the various sections on the subject above. Not everyone wants to respond every time you raise the same issue. At this point you are wasting the time of all concerned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and therefore it is not the place to be “playful” or have “fun” or discuss the validity of your opinions (unless it directly relates to the article’s content and consensus has not been established). You may use sites such Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter for those purposes. MrSwagger21 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add an opinion to this discussion. The very definition of a case fatality rate means that there must be a case of a disease, which means something out of the ordinary that is affecting a human being. If aging is a disease, that means we have 7.8 billion cases of it, which is approximately the current world population. Every human being on earth is aging right now, including you and me. Is something really even considered a ‘disease’ if all people have always had it and will always have it, at least for the foreseeable future? It is not a disease, it is a natural process, and therefore I believe it should not be included in this list. Even if one says, “It is still a detrimental process” or “It is still a condition”, the title of this article begins with “List of human diseases”, not “List of human detrimental processes” or “List of human diseases and conditions”. All diseases are conditions, but more importantly, not all conditions are diseases (especially naturally occurring conditions). It is important to stick to the article’s original scope. MrSwagger21 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A compromise: 86.129.117.3, why don't you create an article called something like Human diseases and conditions by fatality rate or Human diseases and conditions by survival rate and you can include the diseases for which there is information on fatality, but not a specific "case fatality rate". So, cancer can be included, with 5-year survival rates, aging with a 100% fatality rate (eventually), and other non-infectious diseases. That way, you can record the information about these diseases and conditions, without falling afoul of the precise definition of "case fatality rate". -Dodecahedron123 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick note: If you do decide to create an article like Dodecahedron123 recommended above, you must create a draft and submit it at Articles for Creation unless you decide to create an account, as non-registered and non-autoconfirmed users cannot create articles directly into the mainspace. MrSwagger21 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, thank you for your input :) Basically as you can imagine I still disagree with you so I still think organismal senescence should be included in this present article. Basically organismal senescence is a disease with (as of May 2020) a 100% CFR, it looks kind of obvious to me. It's a very real disease, that starts with "cosmetic changes" like wrinkles, gray hair, etc... then eventually weakens almost everything in your body and brain until you eventually die... basically organismal senescence makes you slowly rot until you eventually die... pretty nasty disease imho. It's a pity it's so hard for you to recognize it's a disease. And it's not because 100% of people are currently (as of May 2020) affected by it that it doesn't make it a disease. Imagine some sort of virus that would propagate and would make everybody on Earth and their descendants have a disease similar to progeria. It is not because 100% of people would now have a disease similar to progeria that it would not be a disease any more, this is the same for organismal senescence. Anyway I recognize, for now at least (maybe 2020 is still too early for that) the consensus is against me for now so I admit defeat on this purely on the grounds that I'm currently in a minority opinion (by a small margin it seems, at least on Wikipedia currently) about organismal senescence being a disease with (as of May 2020) a CFR of 100%. But I hope it will change in the near future. Imho it will surely change once the CFR for organismal senescence falls below 100% which might happen earlier than people think thanks to AI and especially thanks to the TS. Anyway thank you guys, I had lots of fun debating this and other things with you (even if some of you don't like having fun in here it seems which I think is a pity), have a nice day and all the best to you in your various endeavors :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To MrSwagger21 (and whoever it may concern), I have read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and I don't see how it is relevant to being "playful" or having "fun" here. So be sure I will carry on being "playful" (with whoever does not find it annoying) and have "fun" (this does not depend on other people) on Wikipedia. Thank you :) (btw I had fun writing this edit and that's perfectly fine :)) Have a nice day (hopefully not too "playful" and/or not too "fun" for you as it seems you are not into these things and that's perfectly fine too, I respect that) :) 86.129.117.3 (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being “playful and fun” and subtly but rudely insulting other editors. You did the second thing and disguised it as the first, and you know that. A perfect example is your message above that I’m responding to right now with this post. I don’t mind having fun but I will not accept being personally attacked. Anyways, I’m going to stop discussing your behavior with you here, as article talk pages are for the article and not for conversations about user conduct or users violating the policies that moderate such conduct. If you want to have further discussion, do so on your talk page. One last thing, you have already been told to stop your personal attacks, please don’t make me report you to an administrator again. MrSwagger21 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ?!   /  86.129.117.3 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

For the layman
Hi. Onc clear that the technical term is "human disease case fatality rates", is there a difference referring to it as "human disease fatality rates"? Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Case fatality rate (CFR) is a specific technical term, with its own article. 153.103.190.11 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Major overhaul of the table
As the table was, those diseases whose values are "untreated" were hard to distinguish. I added a column for that data to be represented. I left the Disease column alone, still noting the untreated information there as well until this issue is completed, to minimize confusion if edits need to be made.

However, this is really only a partial fix. The values for some diseases are only given untreated (eg rabies), but others list values for both treated and untreated (eg Typhoid fever). It makes sense to me to have the values linked in some way when talking about the same disease. In some cases, it would make a lot of sense for the table to represent both values via separate columns rather than entries being listed on separate rows. However, this isn't as simple as the table gets; smallpox is listed five times.

Considered layouts
Following is a small sample of the table as it is currently represented. It lists smallpox five times, for various reasons; typhoid twice, treated and untreated; and rabies once. None of these show any relationship to each other, and it is hard to see that there is no data for "rabies, treated", or that there is data for two conditions of typhoid. (Values for Variola major, unvaccinated / vaccinated might be wrong.)

The table has a lot of information that is simply not accessible in its current state, and diseases have values for different conditions should be linked somehow. Another benefit to having more columns is that they can potentially hold more information, and provide instant feedback on what is missing from the table. For instance, there must be data on HIV/AIDS CFRs when treated.

As you can see, this would force clarity into much of the data (eg. whether or not the data for pregnant women was vaccinated or not). However, with treatment columns as well as vaccination, there would likely end up several columns that would be mostly empty. Also, having vaccinated or unvaccinated columns implies to some extent that everything can be vaccinated. Having subcolumns makes this worse, as everything is forced to take a value, and it's not clear whether vaccinated or unvaccinated is the default for the current values.

For the record, variables include:
 * Treated, untreated
 * Vaccinated, or not
 * ages, or adults vs children vs infants (eg. pertussis, Hep A, chickenpox)
 * types (eg. anthrax infection types)
 * other info (eg. smallpox in pregnant women)

I'd really appreciate some commentary from others if others have any ideas. — Harry (talk ) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is all unnecessary. Just click the sort button to the right of the "Disease" heading & all five "Smallpox" entries come together, both "Typhoid fever" entries come together, etc, etc... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if the pathogens would be (in one column or by color) classified as virus, bacteria, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C63:9680:1155:2B1F:43AE:31DA (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Major Depressive Disorder
I have removed Major depressive disorder ("CFR: ~ 15% ) mostly because depression is not a disease. The source provided (listed above) was rather dubious, as it consisted of a short clip of someone saying that the fatality rate is "approximately fifteen percent". I'm sure there are better sources, but the listing of something like depression in this article doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I wouldn't be against it being noted below the table though, if people would prefer that, as I think it is perhaps useful for comparison. Please respond with reasoning before returning it to the list. — Harry (talk ) 05:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that depression is not a disease? It is listed as F32/33 on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and as #3589 in the Diseases Database. It is routinely listed on "Global Burden of Disease" aggregations. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Desire for additional sources
The claimed 100% Clinical Fatality Rate of the first few diseases comes from the same reference entitled "My List of the Five Deadliest Communicable Diseases", which isn't verifiable to other readers. I suggest we ought to provide more supportive sources to that. I tried to collect them on the main articles but failed as the statistics are highly inconsistent there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biodangerous (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Naegleria
Untreated naegleria has about a 100% fatality rate but with aggressive treatment I believe it would drop to about 90% - I really cannot seem to find any sources about this however Mfernflower (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Tay–Sachs disease
Should Tay–Sachs disease be on the list? Its fatality rate is almost 100%, and although it is a genetic disease it is worth mentioning Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is on the list. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is on the list. -- Jibal (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid estimate
The explanation should only refer to the current estimate, and not claim it is likely to rise. It's just as likely to go down, due to recorded cases being under-reported. This should be fixed. Oyvsho (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All the other diseases on this list are based on historic cases where infected people have had time to die. That's not true for COVID-19, an ongoing pandemic.  The cited source  makes this clear.  If you think it's just as likely to rise then please cite a source that says so. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally COVID-19 CFR estimates varies by age sex and existing health issues being higher for elderly and those with other health issues. The CDC has estimated an overall CFR of about 1% at this time. The early CFR estimates were over 12.7% (due to the breakdown of healthcare facilities in Wuhan) and quickly fell as case bias was reduced and was estimated as low as .16% in other areas of China. A proper estimate for a rapidly changing CFR number should include a range with +/- high low factors with the CDC best est of ~ 1%. Cite: Mizumoto K, Chowell G. Estimating risk for death from 2019 novel coronavirus disease, China, January–February 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jun [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200233 DOI: 10.3201/eid2606.200233 Original Publication Date: 3/13/2020  -  Link: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0233_article  An additional cite note should mention that the CFR becomes higher with age and is highest for the elderly. Ref: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#global-case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.106.162 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * CFR varies depending on the age, sex and health status of the sufferer in most if not all the diseases on this list. I think it'd be pointless to add it as a note. Oqwert (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a serious problem with placing a figure on the mortality rate for Covid 19. That is that the current figure is based on total cases to date. The current underlying mortality rate as I write is over 18% if you count those cases that have been resolved either by death or cure. There are still nearly 600k unresolved cases, and unless all of those end in a cure. then it is inevitable that the current mortality rate will rise.46.7.195.132 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is about CFRs, not mortality rates. -- Jibal (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's about CFR and not mortality rates, then why are you giving mortality rates?46.7.195.132 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrt CFR vs IFR, don't you think guys the CFR number is ridiculous specially during an outbreak and with many different countries testing on many different scales (in relation to the size of country population). For example, to extrapolate, in some countries where testing would only be carried out on dead people the CFR would be 100%, in some other countries where testing would be done on the whole population CFR would be around 0.5% (same as IFR). So that CFR number imho is completely irrelevant and misleading. What do you think? Imho IFR, which is a methodology-independant number, should be used and not CFR as CFR is highly dependent on testing scale so is really silly and makes people who use CFR very silly and also makes Wikipedia looks very silly (wouldn't be the 1st time though!). 81.154.24.81 (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This list is specifically about CFRs and not IFRs, so showing the IFR of a disease in it would be misleading and not the other way around. If you want a list that shows IFRs instead, you're free to make one. Oqwert (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, done, thanks. 81.154.24.81 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IM looking for IFR.. and google brought me to this page.. where do i find the IFR table? Also... it seems silly to me to include covid data from jan/feb/mar/april even may of 2020, when tests were being rationed in most countries - thus (symton free) infections were wildly under-reported, (and still in some countires that eg charge $200usd for a test.... Cilstr (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For how long haven't you guys looked at your very own CFR sources given in this article? The c. 7% figure has long been outdated according to Worldofmeters and their UN sources: Out of roughly 3 million confirmed cases, 1 million cases have been decided one way or the other, and the rate of people that have died out of those 1 million officially given there is not 7%, but 19%! It seems to me as if Johns Hopkins is treating all active cases as either non-existant or cured in order to arrive at their absurdly low rate of c. 7%. --2003:EF:13CE:6A11:90E4:1E92:E9B0:3403 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * CFR is not the same as death rate, which would probably be much lower than 7% if you took into account estimations for the total number of infected people, many of which are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms and do not seek medical atention. CFR is calculated using the total number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths from those cases during a given period of time (in this case, over 3 million and 250 thousand, respectively) and does not represent the ratio between deaths and recoveries. Oqwert (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The entry on COVID-19 references the article: "Using Early Data to Estimate the Actual Infection Fatality Ratio from COVID-19 in France". Biology. 9 (5): 97. doi:10.3390/biology9050097. PMID 32397286." The article only discusses CFR one time, which is on page 5: "...we found here an IFR of 0.5% based on hospital death counting data, to be compared with a case fatality rate (CFR, number of deaths over number of diagnosed cases) of 2% on 17 March." Accordingly, I will update the article to accurately reflect the information from the reference. Kylejnovak (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous estimate of "~2%" for COVID-19 was based on a paper for France. We want a global estimate. If you change this value, please also update the Notes column by including how recent the data is, the scope (you shouldn't actually have to change this since it should be global), and the reference, moving the old reference to the references column. Until the pandemic is over and certainty is higher, the percentage ought to remain as a range, preferably representing the 95% confidence interval. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why we still dont know the true death rate of COVID-19 ?
Yug (talk)  11:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-death-rate.html


 * This article is about the case fatality rate of human diseases, not mortality rates. Oqwert (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Treated/untreated
It doesn't make much sense to mix in the CFR of treated and untreated diseases following seemingly arbitrary criteria. For example, anthrax, which is treatable, has an entry for untreated cases with the treated CFR added under "notes", and for botulism it seems to be the other way around. I suggest dividing the CFR when a disease is treated and when it isn't into two separate columns for the sake of clarity and consistency.

I am also unsure why the table consists mostly of infectious diseases but some non infectious disorders such as anorexia nervosa are still included while excluding diseases such as ischemic heart diseases, the most common cause of death, as well as other mental disorders.

Also what does "vaccinated" mean? that a vaccine exists? that the patients mentioned in the source were all vaccinated? It's not made clear anywhere, and if it's the first case it would not be consistent with the usage of other terms in the same column.

Oqwert (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t Influencia A and Spanish flu the same thing?
Technically Influencia A and Spanish flu are the same disease. CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The "Spanish" flu was one type of Influenza (sic) A. -- Jibal (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Listed CFR and IFR for "Seasonal Flu" Appear to be Very Wrong
The table lists CFR and IFR for the seasonal flu are 2.3% and 0.1%, respectively. The listed CFR is much higher than I've seen in any reference (the highest I've seen is 0.1%, although it would take me some time to find a good reference) and it is not supported by the reference that is used in the table. I could not find a listed CFR in the reference. The reference does indicate that the IFR for the seasonal flu is 0.04%.DoctorResonable (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, I have no idea where those numbers are from. Oqwert (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I've waited sufficiently long on this. I am updating the CFR and IFR of the seasonal flu to 0.1% and 0.025-0.04%, respectively. I'm updating the references to include a Wash Post article and a LiveScience article that describes the flu CFR as 0.1% and the flu IFR as a quarter of the CFR (hence the 0.025% on the bottom of the range). The LiveScience article cites the Wash Post article, so it is a bit circular. I'm citing the LiveScience article because I'm worried about the Wash Post article disappearing behind a paywall. I'll keep the Bloomberg article as a reference for the an upper bound for the IFR (0.04%). DoctorResonable (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New case fatality rate estimates COVID-19
Please read this recent research paper on case fatality rates of COVID-19: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341505353_The_infection_fatality_rate_of_COVID-19_inferred_from_seroprevalence_data/link/5ec4baff458515626cb84a29/download 77.60.121.89 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong numbers on COVID-19
This article stated that CFR for covid is "~[0.23–1.15]% (As of October 2020)", and refers to https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/83545 where "IFR to be 1.15%".

IFR is NOT CFR! it is diffefent measure and not relevant to this article. Please redact.

2A02:2168:A2EB:DF00:4456:B56C:CF6:7AFE (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)alex


 * Done. Oqwert (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Add monkeypox
Could someone with access to the relevant data please add Monkey pox to this list MaryPercival (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * }