The minimal COVID-19 vaccination coverage and efficacy to compensate for a potential increase of transmission contacts, and increased transmission probability of the emerging strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mass immunization is a potentially effective approach to finally control the local outbreak and global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it can also lead to undesirable outcomes if mass vaccination results in increased transmission of effective contacts and relaxation of other public health interventions due to the perceived immunity from the vaccine. METHODS: We designed a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission dynamics that takes into consideration the epidemiological status, public health intervention status (quarantined/isolated), immunity status of the population, and strain variations. Comparing the control reproduction numbers and the final epidemic sizes (attack rate) in the cases with and without vaccination, we quantified some key factors determining when vaccination in the population is beneficial for preventing and controlling future outbreaks. RESULTS: Our analyses predicted that there is a critical (minimal) vaccine efficacy rate (or a critical quarantine rate) below which the control reproduction number with vaccination is higher than that without vaccination, and the final attack rate in the population is also higher with the vaccination. We also predicted the worst case scenario occurs when a high vaccine coverage rate is achieved for a vaccine with a lower efficacy rate and when the vaccines increase the transmission efficient contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses show that an immunization program with a vaccine efficacy rate below the predicted critical values will not be as effective as simply investing in the contact tracing/quarantine/isolation implementation. We reached similar conclusions by considering the final epidemic size (or attack rates). This research then highlights the importance of monitoring the impact on transmissibility and vaccine efficacy of emerging strains.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".