Vaccination strategies when vaccines are scarce: on conflicts between reducing the burden and avoiding the evolution of escape mutants

  1. Félix Geoffroy
  2. Arne Traulsen
  3. Hildegard Uecker

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

When vaccine supply is limited but population immunization urgent, the allocation of the available doses needs to be carefully considered. One aspect of dose allocation is the time interval between the first and the second injections in two-dose vaccines. By stretching this interval, more individuals can be vaccinated with the first dose more quickly, which can be beneficial in reducing case numbers, provided a single dose is sufficiently effective. On the other hand, there has been concern that intermediate levels of immunity in partially vaccinated individuals may favour the evolution of vaccine escape mutants. In that case, a large fraction of half-vaccinated individuals would pose a risk—but only if they encounter the virus. This raises the question whether there is a conflict between reducing the burden and the risk of vaccine escape evolution or not. We develop an SIR-type model to assess the population-level effects of the timing of the second dose. Trade-offs can occur both if vaccine escape evolution is more likely or if it is less likely in half-vaccinated than in unvaccinated individuals. Their presence or absence depends on the efficacies for susceptibility and transmissibility elicited by a single dose.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsif.2022.0045
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256623: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256623 on medRxiv