Waning, Boosting and a Path to Endemicity for SARS-CoV-2

  1. Matt J. Keeling
  2. Amy Thomas
  3. Edward M. Hill
  4. Robin N. Thompson
  5. Louise Dyson
  6. Michael J. Tildesley
  7. Sam Moore

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In many countries, an extensive vaccination programme has substantially reduced the public-health impact of SARS-CoV-2, limiting the number of hospital admissions and deaths compared to an unmitigated epidemic. Ensuring a low-risk transition from the current situation to one in which SARS-CoV-2 is endemic requires maintenance of high levels of population immunity. The observed waning of vaccine efficacy over time suggests that booster doses may be required to maintain population immunity especially in the most vulnerable groups. Here, using data and models for England, we consider the dynamics of COVID-19 over a two-year time-frame, and the role that booster vaccinations can play in mitigating the worst effects. We find that boosters are necessary to suppress the imminent wave of infections that would be generated by waning vaccine efficacy. Projecting further into the future, the optimal deployment of boosters is highly sensitive to their long-term action. If protection from boosters wanes slowly (akin to protection following infection) then a single booster dose to the over 50s may be all that is needed over the next two-years. However, if protection wanes more rapidly (akin to protection following second dose vaccination) then annual or even biannual boosters are required to limit subsequent epidemic peaks an reduce the pressure on public health services.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265977: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265977v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265977v1 on medRxiv