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 DeepLorGoogle 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 4,169 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 may also add the template {{Translated|de|COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study}} to the talk page.
The COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study – colloquially, Heinsberg study, also known as Heinsbergprotokoll and HEINSBERG PROTOKOLL. – is a study [1] about the COVID-19 pandemicinGangelt.
The study aimed to determine lethality of and immunitytoSARS-CoV-2; it also estimated the number of unrecorded cases.[3]
Despite the fact that sample size does not determine the representativeness of a study,[4] principal investigator Streeck claims, they examined more persons than recommended by the World Health Organization, the study would "thus be statistically absolutely representative".[5][6]
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]
