ArticleNature communications2023
The impacts of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose separation and targeting on the COVID-19 epidemic in England.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Nash epidemics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Toward optimal disease surveillance with graph-based active learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- A retrospective assessment of forecasting the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 wave in England.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Prioritising older individuals for COVID-19 booster vaccination leads to optimal public health outcomes in a range of socio-economic settings.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- When should lockdown be implemented? Devising cost-effective strategies for managing epidemics amid vaccine uncertainty.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- The role of vaccine status homophily in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey with modelling.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Rational social distancing policy during epidemics with limited healthcare capacity.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Estimating the impact of COVID-19 vaccine inequities: a modeling study.Nature communications · 2023Article
- The impacts of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose separation and targeting on the COVID-19 epidemic in England.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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 older and vulnerable people, 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.