COVID-19 scenarios for comparing the effectiveness of age-specific vaccination regimes, exemplified for the city of Aschaffenburg (Germany)

  1. Tobias Krebs
  2. Holger von Jouanne-Diedrich
  3. Michael J. Moeckel

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose of this report

The purpose of this rapid communication is to illustrate the effectiveness of different vaccination regimes for controlling the number of severe and critical COVID-19 cases in the city of Aschaffenburg, Germany. Our results show that, despite numerous vaccinations in the past, further vaccinations are necessary to immunize the population and to keep the number of severe and critical cases low in the coming months. Considering that not all people can or want to receive vaccination, we compare different age-specific vaccination approaches.

Applied Methods

We use the agent-based epidemiological simulator Covasim for discussing the impact of different vaccination strategies. We calibrate it to reproduce the historical course of the COVID-19 pandemic in the city of Aschaffenburg, Germany; for this, we model and integrate numerous public health interventions imposed on the local population. As for some of the political actions rigorous quantification is currently not available, we fit those unknown (free) model parameters to published data on the measured epidemiological dynamics. Then we calculate the state of immunization of the population, gained through infections and vaccinations, at any time in the past, including models for time-dependent immunity decay that have been made available in Covasim. Finally, we define and compare scenarios of different vaccination regimes, especially with regard to vaccinating adolescents and providing booster vaccinations to the elderly.

Key message

Without further vaccinations, we expect a strong increase in severe and critical cases. In order to restrict their growth our simulations suggest that in all considered cases vaccinations of unvaccinated people is more effective than booster vaccinations for already fully vaccinated people. This applies even to vaccinations of young people who are not themselves at high risk of developing severe or critical illness. We attribute this observation to the fact that immunization of adolescents indirectly protects vulnerable age groups by preventing the spread of the virus more effectively than further immunizing other age groups. This indicates that with the pandemic ongoing, strategies focussed on minimizing individual health risks by vaccinations may no longer coincide with those needed to minimize the number of severe and critical cases.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.31.21262915: (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: 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.08.31.21262915v1 on medRxiv