Take a look at this article, it explains why calculating CFR this way is not accurate:

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/05/10/no-the-death-ra...

    > Erin Mordecai, an assistant professor of biology at 
    Stanford University, agreed with Riley about the 
    miscalculation, and cautioned against the comparison. 

    > She said it’s impossible to accurately calculate a death 
    rate for each group — vaccinated versus vaccinated — 
    because demographics skew the data. 

    > “Those breakthrough cases may not be an average subset 
    of the population, they may be a more at risk group that's 
    more likely to have severe disease anyway,” Mordecai said. 
    “To better understand what's going on with the relative 
    risk, you would need to know the demographics of the 
    underlying health conditions of the people who experienced 
    those breakthrough cases and deaths.”

My comment is accurate. We are talking about CFR. Whether that is a key metric is a different discussion. I provided the numbers and the source.

P.S. That article did not age well.

I'm well calibrated on what CFR is, and I don't disagree that there are better measures. However, the parent made a comment about CFR, and so I updated them with more recent numbers, about CFR, which are 20x higher, so at the very least hints that perhaps their numbers are off.

You’re right. I screwed up by using CFR. Should have said IFR. Mea culpa.

Np! Lots of messiness in the data out there. I hope our data infra gets 8x-64x better in the years ahead. Maybe if we can get there this could be the last pandemic.