Testing Whether Higher Contact Among the Vaccinated Can Be a Mechanism for Observed Negative Vaccine Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence from early observational studies suggested negative vaccine effectiveness (${V}_{Eff}$) for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. Since true ${V}_{Eff}$ is unlikely to be negative, we explored how differences in contact among vaccinated persons (e.g., potentially from the implementation of vaccine mandates) could lead to observed negative ${V}_{Eff}$. Using a susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) transmission model, we examined how vaccinated-contact heterogeneity, defined as an increase in the contact rate only between vaccinated individuals, interacted with 2 mechanisms of vaccine efficacy: vaccine efficacy against susceptibility ($V{E}_S$) and vaccine efficacy against infectiousness ($V{E}_I$), to produce underestimated and in some cases, negative measurements of ${V}_{Eff}$. We found that vaccinated-contact heterogeneity led to negative estimates when $V{E}_I$, and especially $V{E}_S$, were low. Moreover, we determined that when contact heterogeneity was very high, ${V}_{Eff}$ could still be underestimated given relatively high vaccine efficacies (0.7), although its effect on ${V}_{Eff}$ was strongly reduced. We also found that this contact heterogeneity mechanism generated a signature temporal pattern: The largest underestimates and negative measurements of ${V}_{Eff}$ occurred during epidemic growth. Overall, our research illustrates how vaccinated-contact heterogeneity could have feasibly produced negative measurements during the Omicron period and highlights its general ability to bias observational studies of ${V}_{Eff}$.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".