Evaluating COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Strategies in a Partially Vaccinated Population: A Modeling Study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background: Several countries are implementing COVID-19 booster vaccination campaigns. The objective of this study was to model the impact of different primary and booster vaccination strategies. Methods: We used a compartmental model fitted to hospital admission data in France to analyze the impact of primary and booster vaccination strategies on morbidity and mortality, assuming waning of immunity and various levels of virus transmissibility during winter. Results: Strategies prioritizing primary vaccinations were systematically more effective than strategies prioritizing boosters. Regarding booster strategies targeting different age groups, their effectiveness varied with immunity and virus transmissibility levels. If the waning of immunity affects all adults, people aged 30 to 49 years should be boosted in priority, even for low transmissibility levels. Conclusions: Increasing the primary vaccination coverage should remain a priority. If a plateau has been reached, boosting the immunity of younger adults could be the most effective strategy, especially if SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility is high.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.01.21267122: (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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.01.21267122: (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.
-
