Should We Delay the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose in Order to Optimize Rollout? A Mathematical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: With vaccination shortage persisting in many countries, adopting an optimal vaccination program is of crucial importance. Given the slow pace of vaccination campaigns globally, a very relevant and burning public health question is whether it is better to delay the second COVID-19 vaccine shot until all priority group people have received at least one shot. Currently, many countries are looking to administer a third dose (booster shot), which raises the question of how to distribute the available daily doses to maximize the effectively vaccinated population. Methods: We formulate a generalized optimization problem with a total of u T = ∑ i = 1 n u i vaccine doses, that have to be optimally distributed between n different sub-populations, where sub-population u i represents people receiving the i th dose of the vaccine with efficacy α i . The particular case where n = 2 is solved first, followed by the general case of n dose regimen. Results: In the case of a two dose regimen, if the efficacy of the second dose is less than (or equal to) twice the efficacy of the first dose, the optimal strategy to maximize the number of effectively vaccinated people is to delay the second vaccine as much as possible. Otherwise, the optimal strategy would consist of administering the second dose as quickly as possible. In the general case, the optimal vaccination strategy would be to administer the k − th dose corresponding to the index providing the maximum inter-dose efficacy difference ( α i − α i −1 ) for all possible values of i ∈ {1, … , n }, with α 0 = 0. Conclusion: Our results suggest that although extending the interval between doses beyond 12 weeks was likely optimal earlier in the pandemic, the reduced single dose efficacy of vaccines against the delta variant make this approach no longer viable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".