Comparing Vaccination Strategies in Canada Under Different Assumptions
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
This paper estimates the outcomes of two different COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada for the mRNA vaccines currently approved for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), modelled on the vaccination and effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine which is likely to be more widely administered in Canada. The first strategy is the manufacturer recommended standard of two doses (two-dose strategy) given within 21 days apart versus a strategy of giving a larger group a single dose of vaccine (first-dose-for-most strategy) by delaying the second injection.
Three parameters are varied in the course of 36 estimation scenarios of the population-level effects of the two vaccination strategies. The first is the effectiveness of a single dose of vaccine at preventing disease, the second is the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing transmission of the virus, and the third is the rate of transmission of the virus during the course of the simulations.
Over the course of the different scenarios, the first-dose-for-most strategy was superior in reducing disease transmission in all scenarios where vaccination is assumed to have an effect on viral transmission. The results for fatalities was mixed, with the first-dose-for-most strategy being superior in cases where a higher first-dose effectiveness at preventing disease was assumed.
Finally, in the best-guess scenarios where a 75% reduction in disease transmission and a 92.6% effectiveness at preventing disease from a single dose were used, the first-dose-for-most strategy was superior in a situation with reduced vaccine doses available, and switching to the first-dose-for-most strategy earlier helped to prevent a higher proportion of cases and deaths.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.02.21252761: (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 10.1101/2021.03.02.21252761: (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.
-
