Vaccination and Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: When can the UK relax about COVID-19?

  1. Sam Moore
  2. Edward M Hill
  3. Mike J Tildesley
  4. Louise Dyson
  5. Matt J Keeling

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 announcement of efficacious vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2 has been met with worldwide acclaim and relief. Many countries already have detailed plans for vaccine targeting based on minimising severe illness, death and healthcare burdens. Normally, relatively simple relationships between epidemiological parameters, vaccine efficacy and vaccine uptake predict the success of any immunisation programme. However, the dynamics of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is made more complex by age-dependent factors, changing levels of infection and the potential relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) as the perceived risk declines.

Methods

In this study we use an age-structured mathematical model, matched to a range of epidemiological data in the UK, that also captures the roll-out of a two-dose vaccination programme targeted at specific age groups.

Findings

We consider the interaction between the UK vaccination programme and future relaxation (or removal) of NPIs. Our predictions highlight the population-level risks of early relaxation leading to a pronounced wave of infection, hospital admissions and deaths. Only vaccines that offer high infection-blocking efficacy with high uptake in the general population allow relaxation of NPIs without a huge surge in deaths.

Interpretation

While the novel vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 offer a potential exit strategy for this outbreak, this is highly contingent on the infection-blocking (or transmission-blocking) action of the vaccine and the population uptake, both of which need to be carefully monitored as vaccine programmes are rolled out in the UK and other countries.

Research in context

Evidence before this study

Vaccination has been seen as a key tool in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. The vaccines already developed represent a major technological achievement and have been shown to generate significant immune responses, as well as offering considerable protection against disease. However, to date there is limited information on the degree of infection-blocking these vaccines are likely to induce. Mathematical models have already successfully been used to consider age- and risk-structured targeting of vaccination, highlighting the importance of prioritising older and high-risk individuals.

Added value of this study

Translating current knowledge and uncertainty of vaccine behaviour into meaningful public health messages requires models that fully capture the within-country epidemiology as well as the complex roll-out of a two-dose vaccination programme. We show that under reasonable assumptions for vaccine efficacy and uptake the UK is unlikely to reach herd immunity, which means that non-pharmaceutical interventions cannot be released without generating substantial waves of infection.

Implications of all the available evidence

Vaccination is likely to provide substantial individual protection to those receiving two doses, but the degree of protection to the wider population is still uncertain. While substantial immunisation of the most vulnerable groups will allow for some relaxation of controls, this must be done gradually to prevent large scale public health consequences.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.27.20248896: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2020.12.27.20248896 on medRxiv