| Literature DB >> 36172208 |
Jung Eun Kim1, Heejin Choi1, Yongin Choi2, Chang Hyeong Lee1.
Abstract
Prior to vaccination or drug treatment, non-pharmaceutical interventions were almost the only way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. After vaccines were developed, effective vaccination strategies became important. The prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has caused enormous economic losses worldwide. As such, it is necessary to estimate the economic effects of control policies, including non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination strategies. We estimated the costs associated with COVID-19 according to different vaccination rollout speeds and social distancing levels and investigated effective control strategies for cost minimization. Age-structured mathematical models were developed and used to study disease transmission epidemiology. Using these models, we estimated the actual costs due to COVID-19, considering costs associated with medical care, lost wages, death, vaccination, and gross domestic product (GDP) losses due to social distancing. The lower the social distancing (SD) level, the more important the vaccination rollout speed. SD level 1 was cost-effective under fast rollout speeds, but SD level 2 was more effective for slow rollout speeds. If the vaccine rollout rate is fast enough, even implementing SD level 1 will be cost effective and can control the number of critically ill patients and deaths. If social distancing is maintained at level 2 at the beginning and then relaxed when sufficient vaccinations have been administered, economic costs can be reduced while maintaining the number of patients with severe symptoms below the intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. Korea has wellequipped medical facilities and infrastructure for rapid vaccination, and the public's desire for vaccination is high. In this case, the speed of vaccine supply is an important factor in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. If the speed of vaccination is fast, it is possible to maintain a low level of social distancing without a significant increase in the number of deaths and hospitalized patients with severe symptoms, and the corresponding costs can be reduced.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; cost estimation; mathematical model; social distancing; vaccination
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36172208 PMCID: PMC9512395 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.993745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1(A) Number of weekly confirmed cases for age groups (0–9,10–19,20–29,30–39,40–49,50–59,60–69, 70+) and (B) Daily first, second and third vaccination doses. The solid curve indicates average second doses per week. The horizontal dashed lines represent daily vaccination doses (ν=100000, 200000, . . , 500000) used in the model simulation.
Figure 2Schematic diagram for the proposed model.
Parameter definitions and baseline values used in numerical simulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Λ | The force of infection for age group | Estimated | |
| β | Transmission rate from age group | Given in | Estimated |
| ϕ | Vaccination allocation vector | Vary | |
| ν | Daily vaccination doses | Vary | |
| τ | Vaccine efficacy | 0.79, vary | ( |
| ρ | Probability of unconfirmed asymptomatic cases | 0.16 | ( |
| 1/α | Latent period | 5.2 | ( |
|
| Probability of cases having mild symptoms | 1, 0.996, 0.991, 0.984, 0.971, 0.924, 0.854, 0.694 | ( |
|
| Probability of hospitalization without intensive care | 0, 0.002, 0.007, 0.012, 0.027, 0.068, 0.123, 0.275 | ( |
|
| Probability of hospitalization with intensive care |
| |
| 1/ | Mean duration of the case confirmation | 3 | ( |
| 1/γ | Recovery period of asymptomatic cases | 3.5 | ( |
| 1/γ | Recovery (or quarantine) period of mild symptom cases | 14 (treatment center) | ( |
|
| Recovery period of hospitalized without intensive care cases | 15.32, 15.99, 18.66, 17.70, 17.84, 18.44, 19.77, 23.79 | ( |
|
| Recovery period of hospitalized with intensive care cases | 15.32, 15.99, 18.66, 17.70, 17.84, 18.44, 19.77, 23.79 | ( |
| μ | Death rate of groups in confirmed cases | 0, 0, 0.0001, 0.0004,0.0007, 0.0027, 0.0108, 0.0513 | ( |
|
| Probability of death from hospitalization without intensive care | 0.4216 | Estimated |
|
| Probability of death from hospitalization with intensive care | 0.5786 | Estimated |
| κ | Mortality rate of hospitalization with intensive care cases | μ/δ | |
| θ | Relative infectiousness of asymptomatic infections | 0.51 | ( |
Formulae for the cost estimation.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| Mild symptom case ( | |
| Hospitalized case without intensive care ( | |
| Hospitalized case with intensive care ( | |
|
| |
| Older than 20 years | |
| Younger than 19 years | Average daily income of women in their 30s and 40s ( |
|
| Average funeral cost (FC)+Present value of the predicted future income (PV) |
|
| [Vaccination cost per person (VC) + Vaccination procedure cost (PC) + Logistics cost (LC)] × Population × Vaccination rate (VR) |
|
| GDP loss rate for social distancing level |
Descriptions and values of parameters for cost estimation.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Medical cost for mild patients per day | $160.8 (treatment center) | ( |
|
| Medical cost for number of hospitalized patients without intensive per day | $432.5 | ( |
|
| Medical cost for hospitalized patients with intensive per day | $1,129.5 | ( |
|
| Employment rate in age group | 0, 04, 0.557, 0.753, 0.771, 0.743, 0.566, 0.23 | ( |
|
| Female employment rate with children younger than 19 years | 0.555 | ( |
|
| Average daily income in age group | 0, 55.47, 76.63, 109.40, 129.33, 127.14, 82.14, 68.08 | ( |
|
| Average daily income of women in 30s and 40s | 99.3500 | ( |
|
| Average annual salary increase rate | 0.02 | ( |
|
| Social discount rate | 0.04 | ( |
|
| Average working period in age group | 50, 50, 45, 35, 25, 15, 5, 0 | Assumed |
| FC | Average funeral cost | $9,405.38 | ( |
| VC | Vaccination cost per person | $17.89 | ( |
| PC | Vaccination procedure cost | $16.87 | ( |
| LC | Logistics cost | $1 | Assumed |
| VR | Vaccination rate | 0.8 | Assumed |
| GDP | GDP per capita in 2019 | $31,929 | ( |
|
| GDP loss rate for social distancing level | 0.002, 0.018, 0.064 | ( |
Figure 3The effects of vaccination on: (A) Confirmed cases, (B) cumulative confirmed cases, (C) death, and (D) hospitalized population in the ICU for Cν=1,2,⋯, 5 and the SD level 0, 1, 2, 3. The dashed line in the bottom panels represents the capacity of ICU bed for COVID-19 patients in Korea. The circle on each curve represents the time at which the vaccination coverage rate reaches 80%.
Figure 4Ratio of cost to GDP for Cν=1, 2, ⋯, 5 for (A) admission to the treatment center for mild patients (B) home treatment for mild patients.
Figure 5Ratio of cost to GDP for each SD level mitigation scenario when the vaccination coverage rate reaches 60, 70, or 80% in case of admission to the treatment center for mild patients for (A) τ = 0.79 and (B) τ = 0.6 for (Top) Cν = 3. (Bottom) Cν = 1, 2, ..., 5. (N/A indicates that social distancing easing was not implemented).
Figure 6The ratio of total costs to GDP for τ=0.3 − 0.8 and for Rt corresponding to β that is varied as β × Cβ for Cβ=0.7 − 1.3 under SD LV 0, 1, 2, and 3, and the rollout speed Cν=1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Red lines indicate the case when the maximum number of hospitalized patients with severe symptoms is the capacity of the intensive care unit, 2,800, for COVID-19 patients in Korea. It means that the maximum number hospitalized patients with severe symptoms is lower than capacity on the left side of the red curves.
Figure 7Sensitivity index of β, τ, ρ, ν, the vaccine cost, and GDP loss rate for Cν=1, 2, ..., 5 and each SD level.