4.5 Article

Feasibility of Booster Vaccination in High-Risk Populations for Controlling Coronavirus Variants - China, 2021

期刊

CHINA CDC WEEKLY
卷 3, 期 50, 页码 1071-+

出版社

Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
DOI: 10.46234/ccdcw2021.259

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [INV005834]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study findings suggest that unless booster vaccines have efficacy against infectivity and susceptibility of more than 90%, covering 80% of high-risk populations with booster vaccines may not fully prevent outbreaks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Therefore, implementing a COVID-19 booster vaccine strategy for high-risk populations who are already vaccinated is recommended to control the transmission of virus variants in China.
Introduction: Vaccination booster shots are completely necessary for controlling breakthrough infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in China. The study aims to estimate effectiveness of booster vaccines for high-risk populations (HRPs). Methods: A vaccinated Susceptible-Exposed-Symptomatic- Asymptomatic-Recovered/ Removed (SEIAR) model was developed to simulate scenarios of effective reproduction number (R-eff) from 4 to 6. Total number of infectious and asymptomatic cases were used to evaluated vaccination effectiveness. Results: Our model showed that we could not prevent outbreaks when covering 80% of HRPs with booster unless R-eff=4.0 or the booster vaccine had efficacy against infectivity and susceptibility of more than 90%. The results were consistent when the outcome index was confirmed cases or asymptomatic cases. Conclusions: An ideal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination strategy for HRPs would be expected to reach the initial goal to control the transmission of the Delta variant in China. Accordingly, the recommendation for the COVID-19 booster vaccine should be implemented in HRPs who are already vaccinated and could prevent transmission to other groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据