Optimal vaccination policy to prevent endemicity: a stochastic model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine here the effects of recurrent vaccination and waning immunity on the establishment of an endemic equilibrium in a population. An individual-based model that incorporates memory effects for transmission rate during infection and subsequent immunity is introduced, considering stochasticity at the individual level. By letting the population size going to infinity, we derive a set of equations describing the large scale behavior of the epidemic. The analysis of the model's equilibria reveals a criterion for the existence of an endemic equilibrium, which depends on the rate of immunity loss and the distribution of time between booster doses. The outcome of a vaccination policy in this context is influenced by the efficiency of the vaccine in blocking transmissions and the distribution pattern of booster doses within the population. Strategies with evenly spaced booster shots at the individual level prove to be more effective in preventing disease spread compared to irregularly spaced boosters, as longer intervals without vaccination increase susceptibility and facilitate more efficient disease transmission. We provide an expression for the critical fraction of the population required to adhere to the vaccination policy in order to eradicate the disease, that resembles a well-known threshold for preventing an outbreak with an imperfect vaccine. We also investigate the consequences of unequal vaccine access in a population and prove that, under reasonable assumptions, fair vaccine allocation is the optimal strategy to prevent endemicity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".