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
We build a model that consider the falling antibody levels and vaccination to assess the impact of falling antibody levels and vaccination on the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, and simulate the influence of vaccination rates and failure rates on the number of daily new cases in England. We get that the lower the vaccine failure rate, the fewer new cases. Over time, vaccines with low failure rates are more effective in reducing the number of cases than vaccines with high failure rates and the higher the vaccine efficiency and vaccination rate, the lower the epidemic peak. The peak arrival time is related to a boundary value. When the failure rate is less than this boundary value, the peak time will advance with the decrease of failure rate; when the failure rate is greater than this boundary value, the peak time is delayed with the decrease of failure rate. On the basis of improving the effectiveness of vaccines, increasing the vaccination rate has practical significance for controlling the spread of the epidemic.
]]>Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.01.21266680: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.01.21266680: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
-
