The authors identified a numerical error in the Figure 2 in the main text: an incorrect value for the estimates using Sanada et al and the estimates using Yamayoshi et al. The error arose during the preparation of the figure and not in the underlying analysis. A revised version of Figure 2 can be seen on the next page.
Forest plot of infection fatality risk estimates by study and age group.
Each row corresponds to one study. Results are shown for up to three age groups: 0–39 years, 40–64 years, and ≥ 65 years. Each row displays study location, age group, study period, and IFR estimates as points with horizontal 95% confidence intervals. The exact estimate with its 95% interval is printed to the right of the plot.

Figure 2. Long description
The forest plot is divided into three vertical sections by age group. Each section contains columns for Location, Age, Period, a graphical plot of I F R percentages, and a numerical column for I F R with 95 percent C I.
* Top Panel: Age group 0 to 39 years old. Locations are split into Asia (Japan waves 1 to 3, Korea, Wuhan, and estimates using Yamayoshi or Sanada) and Non-Asia (France, Portugal, Spain, Indiana, New York, Seattle). I F R values are very low, ranging from 0.00 to 0.03 percent, with Wuhan as an outlier at 5.80 percent.
* Middle Panel: Age group 40 to 64 years old. Asia locations include Japan, Jakarta, Wuhan, and Korea. Non-Asia includes Belgium, Portugal, Spain, France, Indiana, New York, Australia, Ireland, and Salt Lake City. I F R values show a slight increase, ranging from 0.02 percent in Belgium to 0.81 percent in Salt Lake City. The x-axis for this section scales from 0.00 to 4.00.
* Bottom Panel: Age group 65 years and older. Asia locations include Japan, Mainland China, and Wuhan. Non-Asia includes Miami, San Francisco, Spain, Belgium, Geneva, Salt Lake City, England, and Atlanta. This group shows significantly higher I F R values, starting at 0.54 percent for Japan wave 2 and reaching 18.60 percent for Atlanta. The x-axis scales from 0.00 to 20.00.
In all panels, the graphical representation uses diamond markers for the point estimate and horizontal lines to indicate the 95 percent confidence interval range.
The authors apologise for this error.