How vaccination and contact isolation might interact to suppress transmission of Covid-19: a DCM study

  1. Karl J. Friston
  2. Anthony Costello
  3. Guillaume Flandin
  4. Adeel Razi

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

This report describes a dynamic causal model that could be used to address questions about the rollout and efficacy of vaccines in the United Kingdom. For example, is suppression of community transmission a realistic aspiration? And, if not, what kind of endemic equilibrium might be achieved? What percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated? And over what timescale? It focuses on the synergies among (i) vaccination , (ii) the supported isolation of contacts of confirmed cases and (iii) restrictions on contact rates (i.e., lockdown and social distancing). To model these mitigations, we used a dynamic causal model that embeds an epidemiological model into agent-based behavioural model. The model structure and parameters were optimised to best explain responses—to the first and subsequent waves—enabling predictions over the forthcoming year under counterfactual scenarios. Illustrative analyses suggest that the full potential of vaccination is realised by increasing the efficacy of contact tracing: for example, under idealised (best case) assumptions—of an effective vaccine and efficient isolation of infected pre-symptomatic cases— suppression of community transmission would require 50% herd immunity by vaccinating 22% by the end of 2021; i.e., 15 million people or about 50,000 per day. With no change in the isolation of contacts, 36% would require vaccination, i.e., 25 million people. These figures should not be read as estimates of the actual number of people requiring vaccination; however, they illustrate the potential of this kind of model to quantify interactions among public health interventions. We anticipate using this model in a few months—to estimate the average effectiveness of vaccines when more data become available.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.03.20248972: (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: 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 10.1101/2021.01.03.20248972 on medRxiv