skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Safe reopening of university campuses is possible with COVID-19 vaccination
We construct an agent-based SEIR model to simulate COVID-19 spread at a 16000-student mostly non-residential urban university during the Fall 2021 Semester. We find that mRNA vaccine coverage at 100% combined with weekly screening testing of 25% of the campus population make it possible to safely reopen to in-person instruction. Our simulations exhibit a right-skew for total infections over the semester that becomes more pronounced with less vaccine coverage, less vaccine effectiveness and no additional preventative measures. This suggests that high levels of infection are not exceedingly rare with campus social connections the main transmission route. Finally, we find that if vaccine coverage is 100% and vaccine effectiveness is above 80%, then a safe reopening is possible even without facemask use. This models possible future scenarios with high coverage of additional “booster” doses of COVID-19 vaccines.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2033580
NSF-PAR ID:
10437578
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Editor(s):
Khudyakov, Yury E
Date Published:
Journal Name:
PLOS ONE
Volume:
17
Issue:
7
ISSN:
1932-6203
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e0270106
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Frontiers in Immunology)
    null (Ed.)
    The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic’s early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults. 
    more » « less
  2. ( , Journal of Medical Ethics)
    Despite their clearly demonstrated safety and effectiveness, approved vaccines against COVID-19 are commonly mistrusted. Nations should find and implement effective ways to boost vaccine confidence. But the implications for ethical vaccine development are less straightforward than some have assumed. Opponents of COVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, in particular, made speculative or empirically implausible warnings on this matter, some of which, if applied consistently, would have ruled out most COVID-19 vaccine trials and many non-pharmaceutical responses. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ( , Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics)
    null (Ed.)
    This study examined whether future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance differed based on an experimental manipulation of the vaccine safety and effectiveness profile. Data come from the Detroit Metro Area Community Study, a population-based study conducted July 15–20, 2020. Participants were asked whether they would get a new COVID-19 vaccine after being randomly assigned information about the vaccine’s effectiveness (50% or 95%) and chance of fever (5% or 20%). Among 1,117 Detroiters, 51.3% would accept a COVID-19 vaccine that is 50% effective and 77.1% would accept a vaccine that is 95% effective. Women and adults ≥65 were more accepting of a vaccine; Black Detroiters were less accepting. Believing vaccines to be important, effective, and safe was associated with higher acceptance. Uptake of a COVID-19 may be limited, depending on perceived vaccine effectiveness and general attitudes toward vaccines. Public health approaches to modifying these attitudes will be especially important in the Black community. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ( , EClinicalMedicine)
    null (Ed.)
    Background: COVID-19 vaccines have been approved and made available. While questions of vaccine allocation strategies have received significant attention, important questions remain regarding the potential impact of the vaccine given uncertainties regarding efficacy against transmission, availability, timing, and durability. Methods: We adapted a susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) model to examine the potential impact on hospitalization and mortality assuming increasing rates of vaccine efficacy, coverage, and administration. We also evaluated the uncertainty of the vaccine to prevent infectiousness as well as the impact on outcomes based on the timing of distribution and the potential effects of waning immunity. Findings: Increased vaccine efficacy against disease reduces hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19; however, the relative benefit of transmission blocking varied depending on the timing of vaccine distribution. Early in an outbreak, a vaccine that reduces transmission will be relatively more effective than one introduced later in the outbreak. In addition, earlier and accelerated implementation of a less effective vaccine is more impactful than later implementation of a more effective vaccine. These findings are magnified when considering the durability of the vaccine. Vaccination in the spring will be less impactful when immunity is less durable. Interpretation: Policy choices regarding non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and face mask use, will need to remain in place longer if the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission or distributed slower. In addition, the stage of the local outbreak greatly impacts the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in a region and should be considered when allocating vaccines. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ( , PLOS ONE)
    Eksin, Ceyhun (Ed.)
    We simulated epidemic projections of a potential COVID-19 outbreak in a residential university population in the United States under varying combinations of asymptomatic tests (5% to 33% per day), transmission rates (2.5% to 14%), and contact rates (1 to 25), to identify the contact rate threshold that, if exceeded, would lead to exponential growth in infections. Using this, we extracted contact rate thresholds among non-essential workers, population size thresholds in the absence of vaccines, and vaccine coverage thresholds. We further stream-lined our analyses to transmission rates of 5 to 8%, to correspond to the reported levels of face-mask-use/physical-distancing during the 2020 pandemic. Our results suggest that, in the absence of vaccines, testing alone without reducing population size would not be sufficient to control an outbreak. If the population size is lowered to 34% (or 44%) of the actual population size to maintain contact rates at 4 (or 7) among non-essential workers, mass tests at 25% (or 33%) per day would help control an outbreak. With the availability of vaccines, the campus can be kept at full population provided at least 95% are vaccinated. If vaccines are partially available such that the coverage is lower than 95%, keeping at full population would require asymptomatic testing, either mass tests at 25% per day if vaccine coverage is at 63–79%, or mass tests at 33% per day if vaccine coverage is at 53–68%. If vaccine coverage is below 53%, to control an outbreak, in addition to mass tests at 33% per day, it would also require lowering the population size to 90%, 75%, and 60%, if vaccine coverage is at 38–53%, 23–38%, and below 23%, respectively. Threshold estimates from this study, interpolated over the range of transmission rates, can collectively help inform campus level preparedness plans for adoption of face mask/physical-distancing, testing, remote instructions, and personnel scheduling, during non-availability or partial-availability of vaccines, in the event of SARS-Cov2-type disease outbreaks. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email