Partial lockdown on unvaccinated individuals promises breaking of fourth COVID-19 wave in Bavaria

  1. Tobias Krebs
  2. 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 aim of this rapid communication is a projection of the development of the fourth COVID-19 wave in the federal state of Bavaria in Germany, taking into account different lockdown scenarios especially for unvaccinated individuals. In particular, the number of infections and the occupancy of intensive care facilities are considered.

Applied Methods

We use the agent-based epidemiological simulator Covasim for discussing various epidemiological scenarios. Firstly, we adapt and calibrate our model to reproduce the historical course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Bavaria. 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. Finally, we define and analyse scenarios of different lockdown scenarios with restrictions for unvaccinated individuals in different areas of life.

Key message

The results of our simulations show that in all scenarios considered, the number of infections, but also the number of severe cases, exceed previous maximum values. Interventions, especially restrictions on contacts of unvaccinated persons, can still mitigate the impact of the fourth COVID-19 wave on populations substantially. Excluding unvaccinated students from attending classes has only a small impact on the public health burden. However, many severe cases can be prevented by reducing community and/or work related contacts of unvaccinated people, e.g, by achieving high home office rates.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.28.21266959: (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 10.1101/2021.11.28.21266959v1 on medRxiv