Abstract
It has been suggested, without rigorous mathematical analysis, that the classical vaccine-induced herd immunity threshold (HIT) assuming a homogeneous population can be substantially higher than the minimum HIT obtained when considering population heterogeneities. We investigated this claim by developing, and rigorously analyzing, a vaccination model that incorporates various forms of heterogeneity and compared it with a model of a homogeneous population. By employing a two-group vaccination model in heterogeneous populations, we theoretically established conditions under which heterogeneity leads to different HIT values, depending on the relative values of the contact rates for each group, the type of mixing between groups, relative vaccine efficacy, and the relative population size of each group. For example, under biased random mixing and when vaccinating a given group results in disproportionate prevention of higher transmission per capita, it is optimal to vaccinate that group before vaccinating other groups. We also found situations, under biased assortative mixing assumption, where it is optimal to vaccinate more than one group. We show that regardless of the form of mixing between groups, the HIT values assuming a heterogeneous population are always lower than the HIT values obtained from a corresponding model with a homogeneous population. Using realistic numerical examples and parametrization (e.g., assuming assortative mixing together with vaccine efficacy of 95% and basic reproduction number of 2.5), we demonstrate that the HIT value considering heterogeneity (e.g., biased assortative mixing) is significantly lower (40%) compared with a HIT value of (63%) assuming a homogeneous population.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
One of the authors (ABG) acknowledges the support, in part, of the Simons Foundation (Award #585022) and the National Science Foundation (Award #1917512).
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:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
The work is theoretical. No new data has been generated.