Modelling Decay of Population Immunity With Proposed Second Dose Deferral Strategy
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
A second dose deferred strategy has been proposed to increase initial population immunity as an alternative to the default two dose vaccine regimen with spacing of 21 or 28 days between vaccine doses for the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. This increased initial population immunity is only of value if one dose immunity does not decay so fast as to nullify the benefit. Because decay rates of one dose and two dose efficacy are currently unknown, a model to project population immunity between the two strategies was created. By evaluating the decay rate of one dose efficacy, two dose efficacy, and time until the second dose is given, the model shows that if there is an increased decay rate of one dose efficacy relative to the two dose decay rate, it is highly unlikely to nullify the benefit of increased population immunity seen in a second dose deferral strategy. Rather, all reasonable scenarios strongly favour a second dose deferral strategy with much higher projected population immunity in comparison to the default regimen.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.05.21249293: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.05.21249293: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
