The impacts of increased global vaccine sharing on the COVID-19 pandemic; a retrospective modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has generated considerable morbidity and mortality world-wide. While the protection offered by vaccines (and booster doses) offers a method of mitigating the worst effects, by the end of 2021 the distribution of vaccine was highly heterogeneous with some countries achieving over 90% coverage in adults by the end of 2021, while others have less than 2%. In part, this is due to the availability of sufficient vaccine, although vaccine hesitancy also plays a role. Methods We use an age-structured model of SARS-CoV-2 dynamics, matched to national data from 152 countries, to investigate the global impact of different vaccine sharing protocols during 2021. We assume a direct relationship between the emergence of variants with increased transmissibility and the cumulative amount of global infection, such that lower global prevalence leads to a lower reproductive number within each country. We compare five vaccine sharing scenarios, from the current situation, through sharing once a particular within-country threshold is reached (e.g. all over 40s have received 2 doses), to full sharing where all countries achieve equal age-dependent vaccine deployment. Findings Compared to the observed distribution of vaccine uptake, we estimate full vaccine sharing would have generated a 1.5% (PI -0.1 - 4.5%) reduction in infections and a 11.3% (PI 0.6 - 23.2%) reduction in mortality globally by January 2022. The greatest benefit of vaccine sharing would have been experienced by low and middle income countries, who see an average 5.2% (PI 2.5% - 10.4%) infection reduction and 26.8% (PI 24.1% - 31.3%) mortality reduction. Many high income countries, that have had high vaccine uptake (most notably Canada, Chile, UK and USA), suffer increased infections and mortality under most of the sharing protocols investigated, assuming no other counter measures had been taken. However, if reductions in vaccine supply in these countries had been offset by prolonged use of non-pharmaceutical intervention measures, we predict far greater reductions in global infection and mortality of 64.5% (PI 62.6% - 65.4%) and 62.8% (PI 44.0% - 76.3%), respectively. Interpretation By itself, our results suggest that although more equitable vaccine distribution would have had limited impact on overall infection numbers, vaccine sharing would have substantially reduced global mortality by providing earlier protection of the most vulnerable. If increased vaccine sharing from high income nations had been combined with slower easing of non pharmaceutical interventions to compensate for this, a large reduction in both infection and mortality globally would be expected, confounded by a lower risk of new variants arising.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".