Back

The Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Dose Separation and Dose Targeting on Hospital Admissions and Deaths from COVID-19 in England

Keeling, M. J.; Penman, B.; Hill, E. M.; Moore, S.

2022-08-24 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.08.22.22278973 medRxiv
Show abstract

In late 2020, the JCVI (the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which provides advice to the Department of Health and Social Care, England) made two important recommendations for the initial roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. The first was that vaccines should be targeted to the elderly and vulnerable, with the aim of maximally preventing disease rather than infection. The second was to increase the interval between first and second doses from 3 to 12 weeks. Here, we re-examine these recommendations through a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England. We show that targeting the most vulnerable had the biggest immediate impact (compared to targeting younger individuals who may be more responsible for transmission). The 12-week delay was also highly beneficial, estimated to have averted between 32-72 thousand hospital admissions and 4-9 thousand deaths over the first ten months of the campaign (December 2020 - September 2021) depending on the assumed interaction between dose interval and efficacy.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Vaccine
○ 203 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.2%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
6
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
7
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
9
Communications Medicine
○ 113 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
10
Eurosurveillance
● 83 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
11
PLOS Medicine
● 110 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
12
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
13
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
○ 73 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
14
European Journal of Epidemiology
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.5%
17
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
19
Emerging Infectious Diseases
● 105 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
21
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
22
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
24
Vaccine: X
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
International Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
29
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.