COVID-19 vaccination rate and protection attitudes can determine the best prioritisation strategy to reduce fatalities

  1. Jorge Rodríguez
  2. Mauricio Patón
  3. Juan M Acuña

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

Background

The unprecedented rapid development of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus creates in itself a new challenge for governments and health authorities: the effective vaccination of large numbers of people in a short time and, possibly, with shortage of vaccine doses. To whom vaccinate first and in what sequence, if any at all, to avoid the most fatalities remains an open question.

Methods

A compartmental model considering age-related groups was developed to evaluate and compare vaccine distribution strategies in terms of the total avoidable fatalities. Population groups are established based on relevant differences in mortality (due to e.g. their age) and risk-related traits (such as their behaviour and number of daily person-to-person interactions). Vaccination distribution strategies were evaluated for different vaccine effectiveness levels, population coverage and vaccination rate using data mainly from Spain.

Findings

Our results show that, if children could also be included in the vaccination, a rollout by priority to groups with the highest number of daily person-to-person interactions can achieve large reductions in total fatalities. This is due to the importance of the avoided subsequent infections inflicted on the rest of the population by highly interactive individuals. If children are excluded from the vaccination, the differences between priority strategies become smaller and appear highly depending on rollout rate, coverage and the levels of self-protection and awareness exercised by the population.

Interpretation

These results are in possible contradiction with several published plans for COVID-19 vaccination and highlight the importance of conducting an open comprehensive and thorough analysis of this problem leaving behind possible preconceptions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.12.20211094: (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.

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.12.20211094 on medRxiv