Matt J Keeling1, Sam E Moore2. 1. The Zeeman Institute for Systems Biology & Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research, School of Life Sciences and Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. M.J.Keeling@warwick.ac.uk. 2. The Zeeman Institute for Systems Biology & Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research, School of Life Sciences and Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and young persons are known to have a high number of close interactions, often within the school environment, which can facilitate rapid spread of infection; yet for SARS-CoV-2, it is the elderly and vulnerable that suffer the greatest health burden. Vaccination, initially targeting the elderly and vulnerable before later expanding to the entire adult population, has been transformative in the control of SARS-CoV-2 in England. However, early concerns over adverse events and the lower risk associated with infection in younger individuals means that the expansion of the vaccine programme to those under 18 years of age needs to be rigorously and quantitatively assessed. METHODS: Here, using a bespoke mathematical model matched to case and hospital data for England, we consider the potential impact of vaccinating 12-17 and 5-11-year-olds. This analysis is reported from an early model (generated in June 2021) that formed part of the evidence base for the decisions in England, and a later model (from November 2021) that benefits from a richer understanding of vaccine efficacy, greater knowledge of the Delta variant wave and uses data on the rate of vaccine administration. For both models, we consider the population wide impact of childhood vaccination as well as the specific impact on the age groups targeted for vaccination. RESULTS: Projections from June suggested that an expansion of the vaccine programme to those 12-17 years old could generate substantial reductions in infection, hospital admission and deaths in the entire population, depending on population behaviour following the relaxation of control measures. The benefits within the 12-17-year-old cohort were less marked, saving between 660 and 1100 (95% PI (prediction interval) 280-2300) hospital admissions and between 22 and 38 (95% PI 9-91) deaths depending on assumed population behaviour. For the more recent model, the benefits within this age group are reduced, saving on average 630 (95% PI 300-1300) hospital admissions and 11 (95% PI 5-28) deaths for 80% vaccine uptake, while the benefits to the wider population represent a reduction of 8-10% in hospital admissions and deaths. The vaccination of 5-11-year-olds is projected to have a far smaller impact, in part due to the later roll-out of vaccines to this age group. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination of 12-170-year-olds and 5-11-year-olds is projected to generate a reduction in infection, hospital admission and deaths for both the age groups involved and the population in general. For any decision involving childhood vaccination, these benefits needs to be balanced against potential adverse events from the vaccine, the operational constraints on delivery and the potential for diverting resources from other public health campaigns.
BACKGROUND: Children and young persons are known to have a high number of close interactions, often within the school environment, which can facilitate rapid spread of infection; yet for SARS-CoV-2, it is the elderly and vulnerable that suffer the greatest health burden. Vaccination, initially targeting the elderly and vulnerable before later expanding to the entire adult population, has been transformative in the control of SARS-CoV-2 in England. However, early concerns over adverse events and the lower risk associated with infection in younger individuals means that the expansion of the vaccine programme to those under 18 years of age needs to be rigorously and quantitatively assessed. METHODS: Here, using a bespoke mathematical model matched to case and hospital data for England, we consider the potential impact of vaccinating 12-17 and 5-11-year-olds. This analysis is reported from an early model (generated in June 2021) that formed part of the evidence base for the decisions in England, and a later model (from November 2021) that benefits from a richer understanding of vaccine efficacy, greater knowledge of the Delta variant wave and uses data on the rate of vaccine administration. For both models, we consider the population wide impact of childhood vaccination as well as the specific impact on the age groups targeted for vaccination. RESULTS: Projections from June suggested that an expansion of the vaccine programme to those 12-17 years old could generate substantial reductions in infection, hospital admission and deaths in the entire population, depending on population behaviour following the relaxation of control measures. The benefits within the 12-17-year-old cohort were less marked, saving between 660 and 1100 (95% PI (prediction interval) 280-2300) hospital admissions and between 22 and 38 (95% PI 9-91) deaths depending on assumed population behaviour. For the more recent model, the benefits within this age group are reduced, saving on average 630 (95% PI 300-1300) hospital admissions and 11 (95% PI 5-28) deaths for 80% vaccine uptake, while the benefits to the wider population represent a reduction of 8-10% in hospital admissions and deaths. The vaccination of 5-11-year-olds is projected to have a far smaller impact, in part due to the later roll-out of vaccines to this age group. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination of 12-170-year-olds and 5-11-year-olds is projected to generate a reduction in infection, hospital admission and deaths for both the age groups involved and the population in general. For any decision involving childhood vaccination, these benefits needs to be balanced against potential adverse events from the vaccine, the operational constraints on delivery and the potential for diverting resources from other public health campaigns.
Authors: Jeroen Luyten; Roselinde Kessels; Katherine E Atkins; Mark Jit; Albert Jan van Hoek Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Justin Lessler; M Kate Grabowski; Kyra H Grantz; Elena Badillo-Goicoechea; C Jessica E Metcalf; Carly Lupton-Smith; Andrew S Azman; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: Science Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 63.714
Authors: Clemens Koestner; Stephan Letzel; Viktoria Eggert; Till Beutel; Pavel Dietz Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: A Sarah Walker; Koen B Pouwels; Emma Pritchard; Philippa C Matthews; Nicole Stoesser; David W Eyre; Owen Gethings; Karina-Doris Vihta; Joel Jones; Thomas House; Harper VanSteenHouse; Iain Bell; John I Bell; John N Newton; Jeremy Farrar; Ian Diamond; Emma Rourke; Ruth Studley; Derrick Crook; Tim E A Peto Journal: Nat Med Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Matt J Keeling; Michael J Tildesley; Benjamin D Atkins; Bridget Penman; Emma Southall; Glen Guyver-Fletcher; Alex Holmes; Hector McKimm; Erin E Gorsich; Edward M Hill; Louise Dyson Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Kiesha Prem; Yang Liu; Timothy W Russell; Adam J Kucharski; Rosalind M Eggo; Nicholas Davies; Mark Jit; Petra Klepac Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2020-03-25
Authors: Lin T Brandal; Trine S Ofitserova; Hinta Meijerink; Rikard Rykkvin; Hilde M Lund; Olav Hungnes; Margrethe Greve-Isdahl; Karoline Bragstad; Karin Nygård; Brita A Winje Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2021-01