Non-pharmaceutical interventions, vaccination, and the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant in England: a mathematical modelling study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.17.21262164: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our analysis has a number of limitations. We did not consider re-introduction of NPIs, vaccination of <18 year-olds, nor booster doses in our projections. These measures, if introduced, may partially mitigate the third wave. Vaccination of 16-17 year olds is planned to start in late August, and clinically vulnerable 12-15 year-olds are also eligible for vaccination51,52. However, given the age-profile of projected hospitalisations and deaths (appendix 1, Figure S25) we anticipate expansion of eligibility may only have a moderate impact. Although we modelled heterogeneity by age in mixing patterns and in vaccine uptake, we did not explicitly model other factors (e.g. by occupation, sociodemographic, and ethnic groups53,54) which may affect both the risk of infection and vaccine uptake. Vaccine uptake was also assumed to be independent of mixing patterns or viral transmission. Groups of individuals who are both at high risk of infection and less likely to take the vaccine may lead to continued outbreaks amongst vulnerable populations and reduce the overall impact of vaccination. Although we explored the impact of waning of natural immunity, here we assumed vaccine-induced immunity did not wane over the timescales we considered in this paper. Our analysis focused only on outcomes directly related to COVID-19: we did not consider the impact on health services, other diseases, mental health, or the economic impact of measures. In summary, our study shows how the phased lifting of ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.