Modeling the Influence of Vaccine Administration on COVID-19 Testing Strategies

  1. Jonathan E. Forde
  2. Stanca M. Ciupe

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Vaccination is considered the best strategy for limiting and eliminating the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of this strategy relies on the rate of vaccine deployment and acceptance across the globe. As these efforts are being conducted, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuously mutating, which leads to the emergence of variants with increased transmissibility, virulence, and resistance to vaccines. One important question is whether surveillance testing is still needed in order to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a vaccinated population. In this study, we developed a multi-scale mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a vaccinated population and used it to predict the role of testing in an outbreak with variants of increased transmissibility. We found that, for low transmissibility variants, testing was most effective when vaccination levels were low to moderate and its impact was diminished when vaccination levels were high. For high transmissibility variants, widespread vaccination was necessary in order for testing to have a significant impact on preventing outbreaks, with the impact of testing having maximum effects when focused on the non-vaccinated population.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v13122546
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21265035: (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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.14.21265035v1 on medRxiv