Vaccine nationalism and the dynamics and control of SARS-CoV-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccines provide powerful tools to mitigate the enormous public health and economic costs that the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to exert globally, yet vaccine distribution remains unequal between countries. To examine the potential epidemiological and evolutionary impacts of ‘vaccine nationalism’, we extend previous models to include simple scenarios of stockpiling. In general, we find that stockpiling vaccines by countries with high availability leads to large increases in infections in countries with low vaccine availability, the magnitude of which depends on the strength and duration of natural and vaccinal immunity. Additionally, a number of subtleties arise when the populations and transmission rates in each country differ depending on evolutionary assumptions and vaccine availability. Furthermore, the movement of infected individuals between countries combined with the possibility of increases in viral transmissibility may greatly magnify local and combined infection numbers, suggesting that countries with high vaccine availability must invest in surveillance strategies to prevent case importation. Dose-sharing is likely a high-return strategy because equitable allocation brings non-linear benefits and also alleviates costs of surveillance (e.g. border testing, genomic surveillance) in settings where doses are sufficient to maintain cases at low numbers. Across a range of immunological scenarios, we find that vaccine sharing is also a powerful tool to decrease the potential for antigenic evolution, especially if infections after the waning of natural immunity contribute most to evolutionary potential. Overall, our results stress the importance of equitable global vaccine distribution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".