ArticleScientific reports2023
Model-informed health and socio-economic benefits of enhancing global equity and access to Covid-19 vaccines.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic factors promoting vaccine nationalism in the face of viral evolution.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- In silico models in oncology, neurology, and epidemiology: systems-level and multiscale perspectives.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
- Roles of mobile teams in tracing lost to follow-up clients: evidence from the optimization of COVID-19 vaccination uptake and routine immunization in Ekiti State.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Immediate adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in drive-through COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: A cross-sectional study.The Indian journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We take a model-informed approach to the view that a global equitable access (GEA) to Covid-19 vaccines is the key to bring this pandemic to an end. We show that the equitable redistribution (proportional to population size) of the currently available vaccines is not sufficient to stop the pandemic, whereas a 60% increase in vaccine access (the global share of vaccinated people) would have allowed the current distribution to stop the pandemic in about a year of vaccination, saving millions of people in poor countries. We then investigate the interplay between access to vaccines and their distribution among rich and poor countries, showing that the access increase to stop the pandemic gets minimized at + 32% by the equitable distribution (- 36% in rich countries and + 60% in poor ones). To estimate the socio-economic benefits of a vaccination campaign with enhanced global equity and access (eGEA), we compare calibrated simulations of the current scenario with a hypothetical, vaccination-intensive scenario that assumes high rollouts (shown however by many rich and poor countries during the 2021-2022 vaccination campaign) and an improved equity from the current 2.5:1 to a 2:1 rich/poor-ratio of the population fractions vaccinated per day. Assuming that the corresponding + 130% of vaccine production is made possible by an Intellectual Property waiver, we show that the money saved on vaccines globally by the selected eGEA scenario overcomes the 5-year profit of the rights holders in the current situation. This justifies compensation mechanisms in exchange for the necessary licensing agreements. The good news is that the benefits of this eGEA scenario are still relevant, were we ready to implement it now.
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.