Vaccine Effectiveness for the COVID-19 in Japan

Introduction

Wide coverage of COVID-19 vaccination has altered the outbreak situation in European countries and the US. Unfortunately, vaccination in Japan started only in February, 2021: among the latest of starting dates of economically developed countries. As of the end of September, 2021, the rate of completion for second dose administration was higher than 55% in Japan (Figure 1) [1,2].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Vaccine coverage and shares of mutant strains N501Y and L452R in 2021

Note: Black line represents shares of N501Y. Gray line represents shares of L452R, in Tokyo measured at the left-hand side. Red scattered points denote vaccine coverage as defined by the first dose with a 12-day delay. Blue scattered points denote vaccine coverage defined by the second dose. The vaccine coverage data were measured at the right-hand side. Because daily vaccine coverage was not reported on weekends and national holidays, data of vaccine coverage are missing for these days. Moreover, there were adjustment for double counting for the number of vaccine recipients and thus vaccine coverage was sometimes smaller than before.

By the time vaccinations started in Japan, mutant strain N501Y (alpha strain) had emerged and expanded to dominate the recorded infections. Subsequently, new mutant strain L452R (delta strain) also appeared in May. Its infectiousness and pathogenicity were estimated as 35–90% higher than those of the original strain circulating before the emerging variant strain, based mainly on data reported by the UK [3–6]. Therefore, we consider the prevalence of these mutated strains together when evaluating vaccine effects.

Contemporaneously, the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games of 2020 had been started on July 23, 2021. A subject of great concern for COVID-19 outbreak effects in Japan was whether audiences would be allowed to attend game events, or not. As part of this controversy, some experts asserted that the Games should be abandoned because they would expand the outbreak explosively[7]. As a result, the game events were held with no live audience. Under the state of emergency declared in Tokyo, effects of the Tokyo Games 2020 must be included to evaluate vaccine effectiveness.

As countermeasures against the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan, school closure and voluntary event cancellation were adopted from February 27, 2020 through the end of March. Large commercial events were cancelled. Subsequently, a state of emergency was declared for April 7 through 25 May, stipulating voluntary restrictions against leaving home. Consumer businesses such as retail shops and restaurants were shut down. During this period, the first peak of infection was reached on April 3. Infections subsequently decreased through July 29. The so-called “Go To Travel Campaign” (GTTC) started on July 22 as a 50% subsidized travel program aimed at supporting sightseeing businesses with government-issued coupons for use in shopping at tourist destinations. It was expected that the campaign might expand the outbreak. Thereafter, GTTC continued to the end of December, by which time a third wave of infection had emerged. The third wave in December, which was larger than either of the preceding two waves, reached its highest peak at the end of December. Therefore, GTTC was inferred as the main reason underlying the third wave [8].

To suppress that third wave of infection, a second state of emergency was declared from January 8, 2021 through March 15, 2021. However, a fourth wave emerged at the end of February, probably because of the spread of variant strains. To support hosting of the Olympics and Paralympics games in Tokyo in July, a third state of emergency was declared on April 25, 2021. It had ceased on June 20, 2021 in Tokyo. Nevertheless, the outbreak commenced again before the Tokyo Games 2020 started. Therefore, a fourth state of emergency was declared on July 13, 2021. It continued thereafter until the Tokyo Games 2020 had closed.

Although results have been mixed, some results of earlier studies suggest that COVID-19 might be associated with climate conditions [9–12]. If that were true for Japan, then GTTC might not have been the main factor contributing to the third wave. Moreover, mobility was inferred as the main cause of the outbreak dynamics for the first wave in Japan [13] and throughout the world [14–17]. This study was conducted to estimate vaccine coverage effects on SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness for the outbreak in Japan as well as the mutated strain, the Olympic Games, counter measures and other factors which might affect infectiousness.

Methods

This study examined the numbers of symptomatic patients reported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) for February 1, 2020 – August 29, 2021 published [18] as of October 18, 2021. Some patients were excluded from data for Japan: those presumed to be persons infected abroad or infected as Diamond Princess passengers. Those patients were presumed not to represent community-acquired infection in Japan. For some symptomatic patients with unknown onset dates, we estimated the onset dates from an empirical distribution with duration extending from onset to the report date among patients for whom the onset date had been reported.

Onset dates among patients who did not report this information and a reporting delay were adjusted using the same procedures as those used for our earlier research [19,20]. As described hereinafter, we estimated the onset dates of patients for whom onset dates had not been reported. Letting f(k) represent this empirical distribution of the incubation period and letting N_t denote the number of patients for whom onset dates were not published and available at date t, then the number of patients for whom the onset date was known is t-1. The number of patients with onset date t-1 for whom onset dates were not available was estimated as f(1)N_t. Similarly, patients with onset date t-2 and for whom onset dates were not available were estimated as f(2)N_t. Therefore, the total number of patients for whom the onset date was not available, given an onset date of s, was estimated as Σ_k=1f(k)N_s+k for the long duration extending from s.

Moreover, the reporting delay for published data from MHLW might be considerable. In other words, if s+k is larger than that in the current period t, then s+k represents the future for period t. For that reason, N_s+k is not observable. Such a reporting delay engenders underestimation of the number of patients. For that reason, it must be adjusted as Σ_k=1^t-sf(k)N_s+k /Σ_k=1^t-sf(k). Similarly, patients for whom the onset dates were available are expected to be affected by the reporting delay. Therefore, we have M_s|_t /Σ_k=1^t-sf(k), where M_s|_t represents the reported number of patients for whom onset dates were period s as of the current period t.

We defined R(t) as the number of infected patients on day t divided by the number of patients who were presumed to be infectious. The number of infected patients was calculated from the epidemic curve by the onset date using an empirical distribution of the incubation period, which is Σ_k=1f(k)E_t+k, where E_t denotes the number of patients for whom the onset date was period t. The distribution of infectiousness in symptomatic and asymptomatic cases g(k) was assumed to be 30% on the onset day, 20% on the following day, and 10% for the subsequent five days [21]. Then the number of infectiousness patients was Σ_k=1g(k)E_t-k. Therefore, R(t) was defined as Σ_k=1f(k)E_t+k/Σ_k=1g(k)E_t-k.

Data indicating the shares of mutated variants among all cases were published by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Unfortunately, detailed information about mutated strains has not been published for the entirety of Japan. We used two measures for the mutant strain shares: N52Y and L452R [22].

We use average temperature and relative humidity data for Tokyo during the day as climate data because national average data are not available. We obtained data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/risk/obsdl/index.php). Additionally, we identified several remarkable countermeasures in Japan: two state of emergency declarations, GTTC, and school closure and voluntary event cancellation (SCVEC). The latter, SCVEC, extended from February 27 through March: this countermeasure required school closure and cancellation of voluntary events, and even cancellation of private meetings. The first state of emergency was declared April 7. It ceased at the end of May. It required voluntary restriction against going out, school closures, and shutdown of businesses. To subsidize travel and shopping at tourist destinations, GTTC started on July 22. It was halted temporarily at the end of December. The second state of emergency was declared on January 7, 2021 for the 11 most affected prefectures. This countermeasure required restaurant closure at 8:00 p.m., with voluntary restrictions against going out, but it did not require school closure. It continued until March 21, 2021. The third state of emergency was declared on April 25, 2021 for four prefectures: Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto. Later, the application areas were extended gradually. They never covered the entirety of Japan.

To clarify associations among R(t) and the Olympic Games in addition to vaccine coverage, the mutant strains, climate, mobility, and countermeasures, we regressed the daily R(t) on dummy variables for the Games, daily vaccine coverage, weekly shares of N501Y and L452R strains, daily climate, mobility, and countermeasures using ordinary least squares regression. Temperatures were measured in degrees Celsius, with humidity, and mobility as percentages in regression, not as standardized. When some variables were found to be not significant, we excluded them from explanatory variables and estimated the equation again.

We define vaccine coverage as the completion rate of the second dose without delay. Delay in administration of the first dose was the response period for increasing antibodies [23]. If a vaccine perfectly protects the recipient from infection, then the estimated coefficient of vaccine coverage would be 0.01 if one assumes an average of R(t) with no vaccination in the study period. That would mean that increasing vaccine coverage by one percentage point can be expected to reduce R(t) by one percentage point. If the estimated coefficient of vaccine coverage were smaller than -0.01, then it might reflect imperfect personal prevention. Conversely, if the estimated coefficients of vaccine coverage were smaller than -0.01, then herd immunity can be inferred to have contributed to prevention of infection among non-recipients. We adopted 5% as the significant level.

Results

Figure 1 depicts vaccine coverage for the first dose with a 12-day delay and depicts the second dose as scatter diagrams. It also shows the shares of mutant strains N501Y and L452R as bars. These are increasing almost monotonically during the period. Adjustments were made for double counting for the number of vaccine recipients. Therefore, the vaccine coverage was sometimes smaller than it was earlier. Figure 2 depicts R(t) during the study period.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Effective reproduction number from February, 2020 through September 28, 2021.

Note: Line represent the effective reproduction number from February, 2020 through September 28, 2021, in Japan. Procedures for calculation was explained in the main text.

Figure 3 presents an empirical distribution of the duration of onset to reporting in Japan. The maximum delay was 31 days. Figure 4 presents an empirical distribution of incubation periods among 91 cases for which the exposed date and onset date were published by MHLW in Japan. The mode was six days. The average was 6.6 days. The calculated R(t) is presented in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Empirical distribution of duration from onset to report by MHLW, Japan.

Note: Bars represent the probability of duration from onset to report based on 657 patients for whom the onset date was available in Japan. Data were obtained from MHLW, Japan.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Empirical distribution of the incubation period published by MHLW, Japan.

Notes: Bars show the distribution of incubation periods for 91 cases for which the exposure date and onset date were published by MHLW, Japan. Patients for whom incubation was longer than 14 days are included in the bar shown for day 14.

Table 1 presents estimation results with full and final specifications. In the full specification, Olympic Games, climate conditions, L452R and the fourth state of emergency were not found to be significant. Therefore, we excluded these variables from the explanatory variables. All remaining variables in the specification were found to be significant in the final specification.

Vaccine coverage reduced infectiousness significantly. Its 95% confidential interval in the final specification was [-0.0312, -0.0237]. Therefore, the estimated coefficient was larger than expected by 174% in estimated and at least more than 137%.

Conversely, the estimated coefficients of the share of the mutated strain were negative. These were inconsistent with the expected effects of the mutated strain. Especially, N501Y was significantly negative consistently, although L452R was not significant.

Mobility was found to be positive and significant. The first three state-of-emergency periods and GTTC were found to be negative and significant. However, SCVEC was found to be significant and positive.

Discussion

Vaccine coverage reduced infectiousness significantly. Moreover, it indicated some evidence of herd immunity by 174%. Results demonstrate that the vaccine contributes to prevention for persons who received vaccination and for an additional 1.74 persons who were not vaccinated. Conversely, a single dose yielded no herd immunity, but protected the individual with vaccination.

We found no evidence that the Tokyo Games 2020 reinforced the outbreak of COVID-19. Expectations by some experts before the Games might be wrong. It seems likely that most Japanese people watched TV at home and rooted for athletes. The no-audience policy might have contributed to reduction in infectiousness during the Games. Even though lower infectiousness prevailed during the Games, if it actually became higher than unity, then the number of newly infected or newly conformed patients would be expected to grow during the period. Therefore, the number of patients has not represented the outbreak situation. We must specifically examine infectiousness during that period to evaluate policies.

Even in the final specifications, which are shown in the right column in Tables 1 and 2, N501Y were significant and negative. That result is inconsistent with results reported from earlier studies. L452R was not significant.

The fourth state of emergency was not found to be significant. That finding is probably attributable to an overlap of the period of the third emergency and initiation of the vaccine campaign or when the mutated strain had been gaining dominance among cases of infection and Olympic Games held. Consequently, multicollinearity might occur among these variables. In fact, if vaccine coverage, the dummy for the Games, and the share of the mutant strains are dropped from the full specification, then the estimated coefficient of the fourth state of emergency was -0.4930; the p value was 0.000. However, the estimated coefficient of Olympic Games without the fourth state of emergency was -0. 2737, with a p value of 0.045. The estimated coefficients indicate that the effect of the fourth state of emergency was estimated as smaller than that of either of the first three state-of-emergency periods. Effects of Olympic Games were significant and negative. We infer that the Games reduced infectiousness. The infectiousness was presumed to be caused by watching TV at home cheering the games because of no-audience in the Games. Then contacts among people might be reduced.

The present study has some limitations. First, we assumed implicitly that epidemiological characteristics including incubation period or delay in reports were the same among the original strain, N501Y, and L452R. However, results of one study indicated that L452R has a shorter incubation period than either the original strain [25].

Secondly, readers must be reminded when interpreting the obtained results that the obtained results do not indicate causality. Results of this study demonstrated that a negative association exists between the vaccine coverage and infectiousness. That finding does not necessarily mean that the vaccine coverage reduced infectiousness. The lower infectiousness might have caused or might have even simply coincided with higher vaccine coverage.

Conclusion

The estimation results are evidence that vaccination coverage reduced the COVID-19 infectiousness significantly. Moreover, we found some evidence of herd immunity from vaccination.

The present study is based on the authors’ opinions: it does not reflect any stance or policy of their professionally affiliated bodies.

Ethical considerations

All information used for this study was published data on the web were used. There is therefore no ethical issue related to this study.

Competing Interest

No author has any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, to declare in relation to this study.