Mass Vaccination Scheduling: Trading Off Infections, Throughput, and Overtime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass vaccination is essential for epidemic control, but long queues can increase infection risk. We study how to schedule arrivals at a mass vaccination center to minimize a tri-objective function of (a) the expected number of infections acquired while waiting, (b) throughput, and (c) overtime. Leveraging multimodularity results of a related optimization problem, we construct a solution algorithm and apply it to a case study of COVID-19. We find that although the standard equally distributed, equally spaced schedule sits near the Pareto-optimal frontier, it is located away from a sharp elbow in the tradeoff between infections and overtime. Specifically, the “elbow policy” achieves approximately 38% fewer expected infections for nearly the same expected overtime. We also discuss managerial insights around the structure of the optimal schedule and compare it to the well-known “dome-shaped” policies found in other appointment scheduling settings. This paper was accepted by Carri Chan, healthcare management. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.02958 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".