Comparing the impact of vaccination strategies on the spread of COVID-19, including a novel household-targeted vaccination strategy

  1. André Voigt
  2. Stig Omholt
  3. Eivind Almaas

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With limited availability of vaccines, an efficient use of the limited supply of vaccines in order to achieve herd immunity will be an important tool to combat the wide-spread prevalence of COVID-19. Here, we compare a selection of strategies for vaccine distribution, including a novel targeted vaccination approach (EHR) that provides a noticeable increase in vaccine impact on disease spread compared to age-prioritized and random selection vaccination schemes. Using high-fidelity individual-based computer simulations with Oslo, Norway as an example, we find that for a community reproductive number in a setting where the base pre-vaccination reproduction number R = 2.1 without population immunity, the EHR method reaches herd immunity at 48% of the population vaccinated with 90% efficiency, whereas the common age-prioritized approach needs 89%, and a population-wide random selection approach requires 61%. We find that age-based strategies have a substantially weaker impact on epidemic spread and struggle to achieve herd immunity under the majority of conditions. Furthermore, the vaccination of minors is essential to achieving herd immunity, even for ideal vaccines providing 100% protection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0263155
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.30.21250828: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.30.21250828 on medRxiv