Abstract
Due to the shortage in COVID-19 vaccine supplies and the alarming sanitary situation engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic, some countries have opted to delay the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine for some period of time, aiming at getting the first dose of the vaccine to a large number of the population, before proceeding with the second doses [7, 6]. This strategy has sparked some heated debates world-wide for its pros and cons, and no clear consensus is reached among experts [5, 3]. Without taking side in this matter, we tried to answer the following question, from a pure mathematical perspective: should we delay the second dose of the vaccine or not?. We show that the answer to this question depends tightly on the efficacy of the first and the second COVID-19 vaccine doses. In particular, if the first dose is more than 50% efficient, the optimal procedure to maximize the number of effectively vaccinated sub-population is to delay the second vaccine as much as possible (the maximum period between the two doses prescribed by the clinical recommendations). On the other hand, if the efficacy of the first dose is less than 50% and the efficacy of the second dose exceeds a certain threshold, then it would be optimal to administer the second dose as quickly as possible (while respecting the minimum period between the two does as prescribed by the clinical recommendations). We provide explicitly the expression of this threshold as a function of the efficacy of first dose.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research work is supported by the National Research Council of Canada, under the grants NSERC-DG RGPIN-2020-04759 and NSERC-DG RGPIN-2020-0627.
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:
CER-UQO
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
1
Blogs/Media
Author Videos