Abstract
Objective To evaluate the benefits of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports (VMVP) for SARS-CoV-2 by estimating the benefits of vaccination and exclusion of unvaccinated people from different settings.
Methods Quantified the benefits of vaccination using meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and transmission studies to estimate the relative risk reduction (RRR), absolute risk reduction (ARR), and number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for transmission, infection, and severe illness/hospitalization. Estimated the baseline infection risk and the baseline transmission risks for different settings. Quantified the benefits of exclusion using these data to estimate the number of unvaccinated people needed to exclude (NNE) to prevent one transmission in different settings. Modelled how the benefits of vaccination and exclusion change as a function of baseline infection risk. Studies were identified from recent systematic reviews and a search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Global Health, and Google Scholar.
Results Data on infection and severe illness/hospitalization were obtained from 10 RCTs and 19 cohort studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, totalling 5,575,049 vaccinated and 4,341,745 unvaccinated participants. Data from 7 transmission studies were obtained, totalling 557,020 index cases, 49,328 contacts of vaccinated index cases, and 1,294,372 contacts of unvaccinated index cases. The estimated baseline infection risk in the general population is 3.04%. The estimated breakthrough infection risk in the vaccinated population is 0.57%. Vaccines are very effective at reducing the risk of infection (RRR=88%, ARR=2.59%, NNV=39) and severe illness/hospitalization (RRR=89%, ARR=0.15%, NNV=676) in the general population. While the latter effect is small, vaccines nearly eliminate the baseline risk of severe illness/hospitalization (0.16%). Among an infected person’s closest contacts (primarily household members), vaccines reduce transmission risk (RRR=41%, ARR=11.04%, NNV=9). In the general population, the effect of vaccines on transmission risk is likely very small for most settings and baseline infection risks (NNVs ≥ 1,000). Infected vaccinated people have a nontrivial transmission risk for their closest contacts (14.35%), but it is less than unvaccinated people (23.91%). The transmission risk reduction gained by excluding unvaccinated people is very small for most settings: healthcare (NNE=4,699), work/study places (NNE=2,193), meals/gatherings (NNE=531), public places (NNE=1,731), daily conversation (NNE=587), and transportation (NNE=4,699). Exclusion starts showing benefits on transmission risk for some settings when the baseline infection risk is between 10% to 20%.
Conclusions The benefits of VMVP are clear: the coercive element to these policies will likely lead to increased vaccination levels. Our study shows that higher vaccination levels will drive infections lower and almost eliminate severe illness/hospitalization from the general population. This will substantially lower the burden on healthcare systems. The benefits of exclusion are less clear. The NNEs suggest that hundreds, and even thousands, of unvaccinated people may need to be excluded from various settings to prevent one SARS-CoV-2 transmission from unvaccinated people. Therefore, consideration of the costs of exclusion is warranted, including staffing shortages from losing unvaccinated healthcare workers, unemployment/unemployability, financial hardship for unvaccinated people, and the creation of a class of citizens who are not allowed to fully participate in many areas of society.
Registration This study is not registered.
Funding This study received no grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. It has also received no support of any kind from any individual or organization.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. It has also received no support of any kind from any individual or organization.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Footnotes
streiner{at}mcmaster.ca
Data Availability
Raw data is freely available online: https://tinyurl.com/tvheppj4.
