Search

Abstract Background Prioritization of higher-risk people for COVID-19 vaccination could prevent more deaths, but could slow vaccination speed. We used mathematical modeling to examine the trade-off between vaccination speed and prioritization for individuals age 65+ and essential workers. Methods We used a stochastic, discrete-time susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) model with age- and comorbidity-adjusted COVID-19 outcomes (infections, hospitalizations, and deaths). The model was calibrated to COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU census, and deaths in NYC. We assumed 10,000 vaccinations per day, initially restricted to healthcare workers and nursing home populations, and subsequently expanded to other populations at alternative times (4, 5, or 6 weeks after vaccine launch) and speeds (20,000, 50,000, 100,000, or 150,000 vaccinations per day), as well as prioritization options (+/− prioritization of people age 65+ and essential workers). In sensitivity analyses, we examined the effect of a SARS-COV-2 variant with greater transmissibility. Results To be beneficial, prioritization must not create a bottleneck that decreases vaccination speed by > 50% without a more transmissible variant, or by > 33% with the emergence of the more transmissible variant. More specifically, prioritizing people age 65+ and essential workers increased the number of lives saved per vaccine dose delivered: 3000 deaths could be averted by delivering 83,000 vaccinations per day without prioritization or 50,000 vaccinations per day with prioritization. Other tradeoffs involve vaccination speed and timing. Compared to the slowest-examined vaccination speed of 20,000 vaccinations per day, achieving the fastest-examined vaccination speed of 150,000 vaccinations per day would avert additional 313,700 (28.6%) infections and 1693 (24.1%) deaths. Emergence of a more transmissible variant would double COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths over the first 6 months of vaccination. The fastest-examined vaccination speed could only offset the harm of the more transmissible variant if achieved within 5 weeks of vaccine launch. Conclusions Faster vaccination speed with sooner vaccination expansion would save more lives. Prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines to higher-risk populations would be more beneficial only if it does not create an excessive vaccine delivery bottleneck.

Abstract Stay-at-home restrictions such as closure of non-essential businesses were effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in New York City (NYC) in the spring of 2020. Relaxation of these restrictions was desirable for resuming economic and social activities, but could only occur in conjunction with measures to mitigate the expected resurgence of new infections, in particular social distancing and mask-wearing. We projected the impact of individuals’ adherence to social distancing and mask-wearing on the duration, frequency, and recurrence of stay-at-home restrictions in NYC. We applied a stochastic discrete time-series model to simulate community transmission and household secondary transmission in NYC. The model was calibrated to hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and COVID-attributable deaths over March–July 2020 after accounting for the distribution of age and chronic health conditions in NYC. We projected daily new infections and hospitalizations up to May 31, 2021 under the different levels of adherence to social distancing and mask-wearing after relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions. We assumed that the relaxation of stay-at-home policies would occur in the context of adaptive reopening, where a new hospitalization rate of ≥ 2 per 100,000 residents would trigger reinstatement of stay-at-home restrictions while a new hospitalization rate of ≤ 0.8 per 100,000 residents would trigger relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions. Without social distancing and mask-wearing, simulated relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions led to epidemic resurgence and necessary reinstatement of stay-at-home restrictions within 42 days. NYC would have stayed fully open for 26% of the time until May 31, 2021, alternating reinstatement and relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions in four cycles. At a low (50%) level of adherence to mask-wearing, NYC would have needed to implement stay-at-home restrictions between 8% and 32% of the time depending on individual adherence to social distancing. At moderate to high levels of adherence to mask-wearing without social distancing, NYC would have needed to implement stay-at-home restrictions. In threshold analyses, avoiding reinstatement of stay-at-home restrictions required a minimum of 60% adherence to mask-wearing at 50% adherence to social distancing. With low adherence to mask-wearing and social distancing, reinstatement of stay-at-home restrictions in NYC was inevitable. High levels of adherence to social distancing and mask-wearing could have attributed to avoiding recurrent surges without reinstatement of stay-at-home restrictions.