Vaccination is Australia's most important COVID-19 public health action, even though herd immunity is unlikely

  1. Emma S McBryde
  2. Michael T Meehan
  3. Jamie Sziklay
  4. Adeshina Adekunle
  5. Abdul Kuddus
  6. Samson Ogunlade
  7. Pavithra Jayasundara
  8. Romain Ragonnet
  9. James M Trauer
  10. Robert C Cope

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Australian National Cabinet four-step plan to transition to post-pandemic re-opening begins with vaccination to achieve herd protection and protection of the health system against a surge in COVID-19 cases. Assuming a pre-vaccination reproduction number for the Delta variant of 5, we show that for the current Mixed program of vaccinating over 60s with AstraZeneca and 16-60s with Pfizer we would not achieve herd immunity. We would need to cover 85% of the population (including many 5-16 year-olds to achieve herd immunity). At lower reproduction number of 3 and our current Mixed strategy, we can achieve herd immunity without vaccinating 5-15 year olds. This will be achieved at a 60% coverage pursuing a strategy targetting high transmitters or 70% coverage using a strategy targetting the vulnerable first. A reproduction number of 7 precludes achieving herd immunity, however vaccination is able to prevent 75% of deaths compared with no vaccination. We also examine the impact of vaccination on death in the event that herd immunity is not achieved. Direct effects of vaccination on reducing death are very good for both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. However we estimate that the Mixed or Pfizer program performs better than the AstraZeneca program. Furthermore, vaccination levels below the herd immunity threshold can lead to substantial (albeit incomplete) indirect protection for both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Given the potential for not reaching herd immunity, we need to consider what level of severe disease and death is acceptable, balanced against the consequences of ongoing aggressive control strategies.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.16.21260642: (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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.07.16.21260642v1 on medRxiv