COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (January 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (April 2020) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 9,088 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study]]; see its history for attribution. You should also add the template {{Translated|de|COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

The COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study – colloquially, Heinsberg study, also known as Heinsbergprotokoll and HEINSBERG PROTOKOLL. – is a study ^[1] about the COVID-19 pandemic in Gangelt.

The study was commissioned and is co-financed by the government of North Rhine-Westphalia and is led by Hendrik Streeck. In the public sphere, the marketing agency StoryMachine presented its results on Facebook and Twitter. Private enterprises also co-financed the study.^{[citation needed]} The results of the study garnered cross-national media attention.^[2]

The study aimed to determine

One weakness of the study was the calculation of the IFR, which represents the lethality of COVID-19. The number of deaths were counted only for a period of 14 days. Because deaths accumulate over many weeks rather than directly after the infection, the study captured barely half the related deaths.^[citation needed] This alone meant that the IFR was almost twice as high as calculated. When the study was published in Nature Communications in November 2020, the authors had not revised their calculation.^[7]

References

This article about the COVID-19 pandemic is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e