Abstract
A distinctive feature of the roll out of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 virus in the UK was the decision to delay the timing of the second injection till 12 weeks after the first. The logic behind this is to protect more people sooner and so reduce the total number of severe infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. This decision caused criticism from some quarters due in part to a belief that a single injection may not give adequate immunity. A recent paper based on Israel’s experience of vaccination suggested that a single dose may not provide adequate protection. Here we extract the primary data from the Israeli paper and then estimate the incidence per day for each day after the first injection and also estimate vaccine effectiveness for each day from day 13 to day 24. We used a pooled estimate of the daily incidence rate during days 1 to 12 as the counterfactual estimate of incidence without disease and estimated confidence intervals using Monte Carlo modelling. After initial injection case numbers increased to day 8 before declining to low levels by day 21. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was pretty much 0 at day 14 but then rose to about 90% at day 21 before levelling off. The cause of the initial surge in infection risk is unknown but may be related to people being less cautious about maintaining protective behaviours as soon as they have the injection. What our analysis shows is that a single dose of vaccine is highly protective, although it can take up to 21 days to achieve this. The early results coming from Israel support the UK policy of extending the gap between doses by showing that a single dose can give a high level of protection.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Professor Hunter and Dr. Brainard were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) and collaboration with the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, UEA, the Department of Health or PHE.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not necessary as analyses based only on publicly available summary data
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data was extracted from a pre-print already posted on MedRxiv and cited in the paper.
