Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Quantitative Biology

ISSN 2095-4689

ISSN 2095-4697(Online)

CN 10-1028/TM

Postal Subscription Code 80-971

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Quant. Biol.    2021, Vol. 9 Issue (3) : 304-316    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-QB-021-0256
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Will the large-scale vaccination succeed in containing the COVID-19 pandemic and how soon?
Shilei Zhao1,2,3, Tong Sha1,2,3, Chung-I Wu1,4,5(), Yongbiao Xue1,2,3(), Hua Chen1,2,3,6()
1. Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
2. China National Center for Bioinformation, Beijing 100101, China
3. School of Future Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4. State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
5. Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
6. CAS Center for Excellence in Animal Evolution and Genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223, China
 Download: PDF(1327 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Background: The availability of vaccines provides a promising solution to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it remains unclear whether the large-scale vaccination can succeed in containing the COVID-19 pandemic and how soon. We developed an epidemiological model named SUVQC (Suceptible-Unquarantined-Vaccined-Quarantined-Confirmed) to quantitatively analyze and predict the epidemic dynamics of COVID-19 under vaccination.

Methods: In addition to the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), our model explicitly parameterizes key factors related to vaccination, including the duration of immunity, vaccine efficacy, and daily vaccination rate etc. The model was applied to the daily reported numbers of confirmed cases of Israel and the USA to explore and predict trends under vaccination based on their current epidemic statuses and intervention measures. We further provided a formula for designing a practical vaccination strategy, which simultaneously considers the effects of the basic reproductive number of COVID-19, intensity of NPIs, duration of immunological memory after vaccination, vaccine efficacy and daily vaccination rate.

Results: In Israel, 53.83% of the population is fully vaccinated, and under the current NPI intensity and vaccination scheme, the pandemic is predicted to end between May 14, 2021, and May 16, 2021, assuming immunity persists for 180 days to 365 days. If NPIs are not implemented after March 24, 2021, the pandemic will end later, between July 4, 2021, and August 26, 2021. For the USA, if we assume the current vaccination rate (0.268% per day) and intensity of NPIs, the pandemic will end between January 20, 2022, and October 19, 2024, assuming immunity persists for 180 days to 365 days. However, assuming immunity persists for 180 days and no NPIs are implemented, the pandemic will not end and instead reach an equilibrium state, with a proportion of the population remaining actively infected.

Conclusions: Overall, the daily vaccination rate should be decided according to vaccine efficacy and immunity duration to achieve herd immunity. In some situations, vaccination alone cannot stop the pandemic, and NPIs are necessary to supplement vaccination and accelerate the end of the pandemic. Considering that vaccine efficacy and duration of immunity may be reduced for new mutant strains, it is necessary to remain cautiously optimistic about the prospect of ending the pandemic under vaccination.
Keywords COVID-19      vaccination      pandemic      epidemic dynamics      epidemiological model     
Corresponding Author(s): Chung-I Wu,Yongbiao Xue,Hua Chen   
Just Accepted Date: 13 May 2021   Online First Date: 20 May 2021    Issue Date: 29 September 2021
 Cite this article:   
Shilei Zhao,Tong Sha,Chung-I Wu, et al. Will the large-scale vaccination succeed in containing the COVID-19 pandemic and how soon?[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(3): 304-316.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/qb/EN/10.15302/J-QB-021-0256
https://academic.hep.com.cn/qb/EN/Y2021/V9/I3/304
Fig.1  A schematic illustration of the model.
Fig.2  Inference and prediction of epidemic dynamics in Israel.
Duration of immunity 90 days 180 days 240 days 365 days
with NPIs
Ending time 2021-5-19 2021-5-16 2021-5-15 2021-5-14
Infected number 836,576 836,169 836,059 835,944
Death number 6,500 6,496 6,495 6,493
Maximum active number 46,658 46,636 46,629 46,623
Date of maximum active number 2021-3-5 2021-3-5 2021-3-5 2021-3-5
Equilibrium value of active number 0 0 0 0
without NPI after Mar 24, 2021
Ending time - 2021-8-26 2021-7-24 2021-7-4
Infected number - 840,383 838,632 837,656
Death number - 6,533 6,520 6,513
Maximum active number 125,593 27,368 27,356 27,343
Date of maximum active number 2021-11-30 2021-3-24 2021-3-24 2021-3-24
Equilibrium value of active number 68,742 0 0 0
Tab.1  Prediction of the epidemic trend in Israel with different durations of immunity
Fig.3  Prediction of epidemic dynamics in the USA with vaccination and multiple parameter settings.
Fig.4  Prediction of epidemic dynamics in the USA under a duration of immunization of three months.
Fig.5  Prediction of epidemic dynamics in the USA with vaccination supposing a higher daily vaccination rate
Duration of immunity 90 days 180 days 240 days 365 days
with NPIs
Ending time - 2024-10-19 2022-7-11 2022-1-20
Infected number - 39,221,727 34,186,100 32,781,833
Death number - 723,566 633,556 608,455
Maximum active number 2,889,241 1,367,655 1,367,655 1,367,655
Date of maximum active number 2021-8-16 2021-2-23 2021-2-23 2021-2-23
Equilibrium value of active number 2,008,797 0 0 0
without NPI after Mar 24, 2021
Ending time - - 2027-4-17 2022-7-23
Infected number - - 65,238,549 47,251,025
Death number - - 1,188,609 867,087
Maximum active number 9,238,306 4,535,544 3,215,414 1,999,593
Date of maximum active number 2021-6-9 2021-6-20 2021-6-22 2021-6-17
Equilibrium value of active number 4,457,975 1,216,877 0 0
Tab.2  Prediction of the epidemic in the USA with different durations of immunity
Duration of immunity 90 days 180 days 240 days 365 days
with NPIs
Ending time 2021-9-17 2021-8-3 2021-7-27 2021-7-21
Infected number 32,545,275 31,717,232 31,560,898 31,416,458
Death number 604,226 589,418 586,623 584,040
Maximum active number 842,149 837,787 836,535 835,138
Date of maximum active number 2021-3-24 2021-3-24 2021-3-24 2021-3-24
Equilibrium value of active number 0 0 0 0
without NPI after Mar 24, 2021
Ending time 2022-1-23 2021-9-28 2021-9-17 2021-9-6
Infected number 45,214,634 34,795,880 33,703,470 32,896,846
Death number 830,688 644,455 624,928 610,510
Maximum active number 2,435,402 984,639 836,535 835,138
Date of maximum active number 2021-5-29 2021-5-8 2021-3-24 2021-3-24
Equilibrium value of active number 0 0 0 0
Tab.3  Prediction of the epidemic in the USA with different durations of immunity and an accelerated vaccination rate of 1% N per day
Fig.6  Optimal vaccination parameters to achieve herd immunity.
1 S. Hsiang, , D. Allen, , S. Annan-Phan, , K. Bell, , I. Bolliger, , T. Chong, , H. Druckenmiller, , L. Y. Huang, , A. Hultgren, , E. Krasovich, , et al. (2020) The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature, 584, 262–267
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8 pmid: 32512578
2 S. Flaxman, , S. Mishra, , A. Gandy, , H. J. T. Unwin, , T. A. Mellan, , H. Coupland, , C. Whittaker, , H. Zhu, , T. Berah, , J. W. Eaton, , et al. (2020) Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature, 584, 257–261
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7 pmid: 32512579
3 S. Zhao, and H. Chen, (2020) Modeling the epidemic dynamics and control of COVID-19 outbreak in China. Quant. Biol., 8, 11–19
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40484-020-0199-0 pmid: 32219006
4 F. Krammer, (2020) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development. Nature, 586, 516–527
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2798-3 pmid: 32967006
5 J.H. Kim,, F. Marks,, J.D. Clemens, (2021) Looking beyond COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials. Nat. Med.,27, 205–211
6 F. P. Polack, , S. J. Thomas, , N. Kitchin, , J. Absalon, , A. Gurtman, , S. Lockhart, , J. L. Perez, , G. Pérez Marc, , E. D. Moreira, , C. Zerbini, , et al. (2020) Safety and efficacy of the bnt162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med., 383, 2603–2615
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 pmid: 33301246
7 D. Y. Logunov, , I. V. Dolzhikova, , D. V. Shcheblyakov, , A. I. Tukhvatulin, , O. V. Zubkova, , A. S. Dzharullaeva, , A. V. Kovyrshina, , N. L. Lubenets, , D. M. Grousova, , A. S. Erokhova, , et al. (2021) Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia. Lancet, 397, 671–681
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00234-8 pmid: 33545094
8 L. R. Baden, , H. M. El Sahly, , B. Essink, , K. Kotloff, , S. Frey, , R. Novak, , D. Diemert, , S. A. Spector, , N. Rouphael, , C. B. Creech, , et al. (2021) Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med., 384, 403–416
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 pmid: 33378609
9 M. Voysey, , S. A. C. Clemens, , S. A. Madhi, , L. Y. Weckx, , P. M. Folegatti, , P. K. Aley, , B. Angus, , V. L. Baillie, , S. L. Barnabas, , Q. E. Bhorat, , et al. (2021) Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet, 397, 99–111
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1 pmid: 33306989
10 China grants conditional market approval for Sinopharm CNBG’s COVID-19 vaccine.
11 Sinovac announces phase iii results of its COVID-19 vaccine.
12 A. Mullard, (2020) How COVID vaccines are being divvied up around the world. Nature. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03370-6
pmid: 33257891
13 J. M. Dan, , J. Mateus, , Y. Kato, , K. M. Hastie, , E. D. Yu, , C. E. Faliti, , A. Grifoni, , S. I. Ramirez, , S. Haupt, , A. Frazier, , et al. (2021) Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science, 371, eabf4063
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf4063 pmid: 33408181
14 S. Aur’elien, , P. Chappert, , G. Barba-Spaeth, , A. Roeser, , S. Fourati, , I. Azzaoui, , A. Vandenberghe, , I. Fernandez, , A. Meola, , M. Bouvier-Alias, , et al. (2021) Maturation and persistence of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory b cell response. Cell,184, 1201–1213.e14
15 L. J. Abu-Raddad, , H. Chemaitelly, , P. Coyle, , J. A. Malek, , A. A. Ahmed, , Y. A. Mohamoud, , S. Younuskunju, , H. H. Ayoub, , Z. Kanaani, , E. Kuwari, , et al. (2021) SARS-COV-2 reinfection in a cohort of 43,000 antibody-positive individuals followed for up to 35 weeks. medRxiv,
16 Z. He, , L. Ren, , J. Yang, , L. Guo, , L. Feng, , C. Ma, , X. Wang, , Z. Leng, , X. Tong, , W. Zhou, , et al. (2021) Seroprevalence and humoral immune durability of anti-SARS-COV-2 antibodies in Wuhan, China: a longitudinal, population-level, cross-sectional study. Lancet, 397, 1075–1084
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00238-5 pmid: 33743869
17 L. Zou, , F. Ruan, , M. Huang, , L. Liang, , H. Huang, , Z. Hong, , J. Yu, , M. Kang, , Y. Song, , J. Xia, , et al. (2020) SARS-COV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 1177–1179
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737 pmid: 32074444
18 J.A. Lewnard, , V.X. Liu, , M.L. Jackson, , M.A. Schmidt, , B.L. Jewell, , J.P. Flores, , C. Jentz, , G.R. Northrup, , A. Mahmud, , A.L. Reingold, (2020) Incidence, clinical outcomes, and transmission dynamics of severe coronavirus disease 2019 in California and Washington: prospective cohort study. BMJ, 369, m1923
19 oxcgrt: An Interface to the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker API.R package version 0.1.0
20 Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Blavatnik School of Government.
21 D. Buitrago-Garcia, , D. Egli-Gany, , M. J. Counotte, , S. Hossmann, , H. Imeri, , A. M. Ipekci, , G. Salanti, and N. Low, (2020) Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med., 17, e1003346
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346 pmid: 32960881
22 L. D. E. Gardner, and Du, H. (2020) An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect. Dis., 20, 533–534
23 F. J. Angulo, , L. Finelli, and D. L. Swerdlow, (2021) Estimation of us SARS-CoV-2 infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths using seroprevalence surveys. JAMA Netw. Open, 4, e2033706
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33706 pmid: 33399860
24 K. Wu, , A. P. Werner, , J. I. Moliva, , M. Koch, , A. Choi, , G. B. E. Stewart-Jones, , H. Bennett, , S. Boyoglu-Barnum, , W. Shi, , B. S. Graham, , et al. (2021) mRNA 1273 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies against spike mutants from global SARS-CoV-2. variants. bioRxiv, doi:
25 D. A. Collier, , A. De Marco, , I. A. T. M. Ferreira, , B. Meng, , R. Datir, ,A. C. Walls, S.A. Kemp S, , J. Bassi, , D. Pinto, , C.S. Fregni, (2021) Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 to mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies. Nature, 593, 136–141
26 J.P. Moore, , and P. A. Offit, (2021) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the growing threat of viral variants. JAMA, 325, 821–822
27 Z. Wang, , F. Schmidt, , Y. Weisblum, , F. Muecksch, , C. O. Barnes, , S. Finkin, , D. Schaefer-Babajew, , M. Cipolla, , C. Gaebler, , J. A. Lieberman, , et al. (2021) mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature. Nature, 592, 616–622
28 A. Fontanet, , B. Autran, , B. Lina, , M. P. Kieny, , S. S. A. Karim, and D. Sridhar, (2021) SARS-CoV-2 variants and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet, 397, 952–954
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00370-6
29 J., Zhang, N., Ding, L., Ren, R., Song,D., Chen, X., Zhao, B., Chen, J., Han J., Li, Y., Song, et al. (2021) COVID-19 reinfection in the presence of neutralizing antibodies. Natl. Sci. Rev., 8, nwab006
30 T. L. Dao, , V. T. Hoang, and P. Gautret, (2021) Recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in recovered COVID-19 patients: a narrative review. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 40, 13–25
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-04088-z pmid: 33113040
[1] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_1 Download
[2] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_10 Download
[3] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_2 Download
[4] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_3 Download
[5] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_4 Download
[6] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_5 Download
[7] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_6 Download
[8] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_7 Download
[9] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_8 Download
[10] QB-21256-OF-CH_suppl_9 Download
[1] Wajid Arshad Abbasi, Syed Ali Abbas, Saiqa Andleeb, Maryum Bibi, Fiaz Majeed, Abdul Jaleel, Muhammad Naveed Akhtar. COVIDX: Computer-aided diagnosis of COVID-19 and its severity prediction with raw digital chest X-ray scans[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 208-220.
[2] Aishwarza Panday, Muhammad Ashad Kabir, Nihad Karim Chowdhury. A survey of machine learning techniques for detecting and diagnosing COVID-19 from imaging[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 188-207.
[3] Georgios D. Barmparis, Giorgos P. Tsironis. Physics-informed machine learning for the COVID-19 pandemic: Adherence to social distancing and short-term predictions for eight countries[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 139-149.
[4] Ayman Mourad, Fatima Mroue. Discrete spread model for COVID-19: the case of Lebanon[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 157-171.
[5] Pavel Grinchuk, Sergey Fisenko. Power-law multi-wave model for COVID-19 propagation in countries with nonuniform population density[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 150-156.
[6] HyeongChan Jo, Juhyun Kim, Tzu-Chen Huang, Yu-Li Ni. condLSTM-Q: A novel deep learning model for predicting COVID-19 mortality in fine geographical scale[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 125-138.
[7] Chen Tang, Tiandong Wang, Panpan Zhang. Functional data analysis: An application to COVID-19 data in the United States in 2020[J]. Quant. Biol., 2022, 10(2): 172-187.
[8] Rudra Banerjee, Srijit Bhattacharjee, Pritish Kumar Varadwaj. A study of the COVID-19 epidemic in India using the SEIRD model[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(3): 317-328.
[9] Wanyu Tao, Zhengqing Yu, Jing-Dong J. Han. A digitized catalog of COVID-19 epidemiology data[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(1): 23-46.
[10] Yuehui Zhang, Lin Chen, Qili Shi, Zhongguang Luo, Libing Shen. Forecasting the development of the COVID-19 epidemic by nowcasting: when did things start to get better?[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(1): 93-99.
[11] Saroj K Biswas, Nasir U Ahmed. Mathematical modeling and optimal intervention of COVID-19 outbreak[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(1): 84-92.
[12] Cecylia S. Lupala, Xuanxuan Li, Jian Lei, Hong Chen, Jianxun Qi, Haiguang Liu, Xiao-Dong Su. Computational simulations reveal the binding dynamics between human ACE2 and the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein[J]. Quant. Biol., 2021, 9(1): 61-72.
[13] Hanshuang Pan, Nian Shao, Yue Yan, Xinyue Luo, Shufen Wang, Ling Ye, Jin Cheng, Wenbin Chen. Multi-chain Fudan-CCDC model for COVID-19 -- a revisit to Singapore’s case[J]. Quant. Biol., 2020, 8(4): 325-335.
[14] Xiaofei Yang, Tun Xu, Peng Jia, Han Xia, Li Guo, Lei Zhang, Kai Ye. Transportation, germs, culture: a dynamic graph model of COVID-19 outbreak[J]. Quant. Biol., 2020, 8(3): 238-244.
[15] Jie Zheng, Huan Li, Qingzhi Liu, Yongqun He. The Ontology of Biological and Clinical Statistics (OBCS)-based statistical method standardization and meta-analysis of host responses to yellow fever vaccines[J]. Quant. Biol., 2017, 5(4): 291-301.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed