| Literature DB >> 34113457 |
Mahendra Piraveenan1,2, Shailendra Sawleshwarkar3,4,5, Michael Walsh6,4, Iryna Zablotska3,4, Samit Bhattacharyya7, Habib Hassan Farooqui5, Tarun Bhatnagar8, Anup Karan5, Manoj Murhekar8, Sanjay Zodpey5, K S Mallikarjuna Rao9, Philippa Pattison10, Albert Zomaya11, Matjaz Perc12,13,14.
Abstract
Since the recent introduction of several viable vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, vaccination uptake has become the key factor that will determine our success in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that game theory and social network models should be used to guide decisions pertaining to vaccination programmes for the best possible results. In the months following the introduction of vaccines, their availability and the human resources needed to run the vaccination programmes have been scarce in many countries. Vaccine hesitancy is also being encountered from some sections of the general public. We emphasize that decision-making under uncertainty and imperfect information, and with only conditionally optimal outcomes, is a unique forte of established game-theoretic modelling. Therefore, we can use this approach to obtain the best framework for modelling and simulating vaccination prioritization and uptake that will be readily available to inform important policy decisions for the optimal control of the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: cooperation; evolutionary game theory; social dilemma; vaccination
Year: 2021 PMID: 34113457 PMCID: PMC8188005 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.210429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: R Soc Open Sci ISSN: 2054-5703 Impact factor: 2.963
Figure 1Simulation of epidemic spread in Australia using the ACEMod platform ((a) adapted from [15]—reprinted with permission from Elsevier; (b) adapted from [14]—reprinted with permission from exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science). (a) Prevalence proportion choropleths showing the spatial distribution of simulated epidemics in Australia for R0 = 1.5 and R0 = 2.0. The minimum prevalence (green) is 5 × 10−3 and the maximum prevalence (red) is 8 × 10−2. The distribution is shown for days 62 (i) and 88 (ii). Both simulations are sample realizations comprising the same demographics (contact) and mobility networks, as well as identical seeding at the same rate at major international airports around Australia. The epidemic peaks at larger cities at similar times, whereas less populous areas are less likely to synchronize [14]. (b) The ensemble average of prevalence for simulated influenza epidemics in 2006, 2011 and 2016, with clear trends in the increased peak prevalence and faster spreading rates [15].