Burden of long COVID among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness: a longitudinal cohort study in King County, WA between September 2020-April 2022.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2, but the burden of long COVID in this population is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a matched prospective cohort study to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of long COVID among sheltered PEH in Seattle, WA between September 2020-April 2022. Adults ≥ 18 years, residing across nine homeless shelters with active respiratory virus surveillance, were eligible to complete in-person baseline surveys and interval follow-up phone surveys. We included a subset of 22 COVID-19-positive cases who tested positive or inconclusive for SARS-CoV-2 and 44 COVID-19-negative controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, frequency matched on age and sex. Among controls, 22 were positive and 22 were negative for one of 27 other respiratory virus pathogens. To assess the impact of COVID-19 on the risk of symptom presence at follow-up (day 30-225 post-enrollment test), we performed log-linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. RESULTS: Of 53 eligible COVID-19 cases, 22 (42%) completed ≥ 1 follow-up survey. While five (23%) cases reported ≥ 1 symptom at baseline, this increased to 77% (10/13) between day 30-59 and 33% (4/12) day 90 + . The most commonly reported symptoms day 30 + were fatigue (27%) and rhinorrhea (27%), with 8 (36%) reporting symptoms that interfered with or prevented daily activities. Four (33%) symptomatic cases reported receiving medical care outside of a medical provider at an isolation facility. Of 44 controls, 12 (27%) reported any symptoms day 90 + . Risk of any symptoms at follow-up was 5.4 times higher among COVID-19 cases compared to controls (95% CI: 2.7-10.5). CONCLUSIONS: Shelter residents reported a high prevalence of symptoms 30 + days after their SARS-CoV-2 detection, though few accessed medical care for persistent illness. The impact of COVID-19 extends beyond acute illness and may exacerbate existing challenges that marginalized populations face in maintaining their health and wellbeing.

The clinical and genomic epidemiology of seasonal human coronaviruses in congregate homeless shelter settings: A repeated cross-sectional study.

Background: The circulation of respiratory viruses poses a significant health risk among those residing in congregate settings. Data are limited on seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) infections in homeless shelter settings. Methods: We analysed data from a clinical trial and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance study at 23 homeless shelter sites in King County, Washington between October 2019-May 2021. Eligible participants were shelter residents aged ≥3 months with acute respiratory illness. We collected enrolment data and nasal samples for respiratory virus testing using multiplex RT-PCR platform including HCoV. Beginning April 1, 2020, eligibility expanded to shelter residents and staff regardless of symptoms. HCoV species was determined by RT-PCR with species-specific primers, OpenArray assay or genomic sequencing for samples with an OpenArray relative cycle threshold <22. Findings: Of the 14,464 samples from 3281 participants between October 2019-May 2021, 107 were positive for HCoV from 90 participants (median age 40 years, range: 0·9-81 years, 38% female). HCoV-HKU1 was the most common species identified before and after community-wide mitigation. No HCoV-positive samples were identified between May 2020-December 2020. Adults aged ≥50 years had the highest detection of HCoV (11%) among virus-positive samples among all age-groups. Species and sequence data showed diversity between and within HCoV species over the study period. Interpretation: HCoV infections occurred in all congregate homeless shelter site age-groups with the greatest proportion among those aged ≥50 years. Species and sequencing data highlight the complexity of HCoV epidemiology within and between shelters sites. Funding: Gates Ventures, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health.

Trends and factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among residents and staff in six Seattle homeless shelters, March 2020 to August 2021.

Introduction: Achieving high COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless shelters is critical in preventing morbidity, mortality, and outbreaks, however, vaccination coverage remains lower among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) than the general population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to retrospectively describe attitudes and identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among shelter residents and staff during March 2020 - August 2021. To identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccine intent becoming more positive overall compared to other attitudes, we utilized a Poisson model to calculate Risk Ratios with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. Results: From July 12 - August 2, 2021, 97 residents and 20 staff participated in surveys across six shelters in Seattle King County, Washington. Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 increased from 45.3 % (n = 53) when recalling attitudes in March 2020 to 74.4 % (n = 87) as of August 2021, and was similar among residents and staff. Many participants (43.6 %, n = 51) indicated feeling increasingly accepting about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine since March 2020, while 13.7 % (n = 16) changed back and forth, 10.3 % (n = 12) became more hesitant, and 32.5 % (n = 38) had no change in intent. In the model examining the relationship between becoming more positive about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to all other attitudes (n = 116), we found a 57.2 % increase in vaccine acceptability (RR 1.57; 95 % CI: 1.01, 2.45) among those who reported worsening mental health since the start of the pandemic. Conclusions: Findings highlight opportunities to improve communication with residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and support a need for continued dialogue and a person-centered approach to understanding the sociocultural complexities and dynamism of vaccine attitudes at shelters.Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.

Trends and factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among residents and staff in six Seattle homeless shelters, March 2020 to August 2021

Introduction Achieving high COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless shelters is critical in preventing morbidity, mortality, and outbreaks, however, vaccination coverage remains lower among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) than the general population. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to retrospectively describe attitudes and identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccination intent among shelter residents and staff during March 2020 – August 2021. To identify factors associated with change in COVID-19 vaccine intent becoming more positive overall compared to other attitudes, we utilized a Poisson model to calculate Risk Ratios with robust standard errors, adjusting for confounding by shelter site and demographic variables determined a priori. Results From July 12 – August 2, 2021, 97 residents and 20 staff participated in surveys across six shelters in Seattle King County, Washington. Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 increased from 45.3% (n=53) when recalling attitudes in March 2020 to 74.4% (n=87) as of August 2021, and was similar among residents and staff. Many participants (43.6%, n=51) indicated feeling increasingly accepting about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine since March 2020, while 13.7% (n=16) changed back and forth, 10.3% (n=12) became more hesitant, and 32.5% (n=38) had no change in intent. In the model examining the relationship between becoming more positive about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to all other attitudes (n=116), we found a 57.2% increase in vaccine acceptability (RR 1.57;95% CI: 1.01, 2.45) among those who reported worsening mental health since the start of the pandemic. Conclusions Findings highlight opportunities to improve communication with residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and support a need for continued dialogue and a person-centered approach to understanding the sociocultural complexities and dynamism of vaccine attitudes at shelters. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917

Human Parainfluenza Virus in Homeless Shelters before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington, USA.

To determine the epidemiology of human parainfluenza virus in homeless shelters during the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data and sequences from respiratory specimens collected in 23 shelters in Washington, USA, during 2019-2021. Two clusters in children were genetically similar by shelter of origin. Shelter-specific interventions are needed to reduce these infections.

COVID-19 and the malaria elimination agenda in Africa: Re-shifting the focus.

The global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in public health, political, scientific and private sector response at an unprecedented scale. However, this shift in focus has caused widespread disruption to global health services and has the potential to reverse gains made in efforts to control malaria. If health systems are not able to maintain malaria control interventions while managing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, malaria cases will increase, thereby placing even more strain on already overtaxed systems. Using a Narrative Review Approach, this commentary explores the impact of COVID-19 on progress made with malaria control and prevention strategies in Africa; and discusses possible mitigation steps to aid community resilience building, through proactive planning and implementation of integrated, inclusive and sustainable strategies to re-shift the focus to attain the malaria elimination goals. We propose strengthening community partnerships, where academia and communities should collaborate and these knowledge-sharing strategies be implemented in order for awareness and interventions to become more networked, inclusive, resilient and effective. Communities should be viewed as 'thought partners', who challenge conventional strategies and aid in developing innovative approaches to community resilience building.

The Clinical and Genomic Epidemiology of Rhinovirus in Homeless Shelters-King County, Washington.

BACKGROUND: Rhinovirus (RV) is a common cause of respiratory illness in all people, including those experiencing homelessness. RV epidemiology in homeless shelters is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional homeless shelter study in King County, Washington, October 2019-May 2021. Shelter residents or guardians aged ≥3 months reporting acute respiratory illness completed questionnaires and submitted nasal swabs. After 1 April 2020, enrollment expanded to residents and staff regardless of symptoms. Samples were tested by multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. A subset of RV-positive samples was sequenced. RESULTS: There were 1066 RV-positive samples with RV present every month of the study period. RV was the most common virus before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (43% and 77% of virus-positive samples, respectively). Participants from family shelters had the highest prevalence of RV. Among 131 sequenced samples, 33 RV serotypes were identified with each serotype detected for ≤4 months. CONCLUSIONS: RV infections persisted through community mitigation measures and were most prevalent in shelters housing families. Sequencing showed a diversity of circulating RV serotypes, each detected over short periods of time. Community-based surveillance in congregate settings is important to characterize respiratory viral infections during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04141917.

Maintaining face mask use before and after achieving different COVID-19 vaccination coverage levels: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Face mask wearing has been an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As vaccination coverage progresses in countries, relaxation of such practices is increasing. Subsequent COVID-19 surges have raised the questions of whether face masks should be encouraged or required and for how long. Here, we aim to assess the value of maintaining face masks use indoors according to different COVID-19 vaccination coverage levels in the USA. METHODS: In this computational simulation-model study, we developed and used a Monte Carlo simulation model representing the US population and SARS-CoV-2 spread. Simulation experiments compared what would happen if face masks were used versus not used until given final vaccination coverages were achieved. Different scenarios varied the target vaccination coverage (70-90%), the date these coverages were achieved (Jan 1, 2022, to July 1, 2022), and the date the population discontinued wearing face masks. FINDINGS: Simulation experiments revealed that maintaining face mask use (at the coverage seen in the USA from March, 2020, to July, 2020) until target vaccination coverages were achieved was cost-effective and in many cases cost saving from both the societal and third-party payer perspectives across nearly all scenarios explored. Face mask use was estimated to be cost-effective and usually cost saving when the cost of face masks per person per day was ≤US$1·25. In all scenarios, it was estimated to be cost-effective to maintain face mask use for about 2-10 weeks beyond the date that target vaccination coverage (70-90%) was achieved, with this added duration being longer when the target coverage was achieved during winter versus summer. Factors that might increase the transmissibility of the virus (eg, emergence of the delta [B.1.617.2] and omicron [B.1.1.529] variants), or decrease vaccine effectiveness (eg, waning immunity or escape variants), or increase social interactions among certain segments of the population, only increased the cost savings or cost-effectiveness provided by maintaining face mask use. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides strong support for maintaining face mask use until and a short time after achieving various final vaccination coverage levels, given that maintaining face mask use can be not just cost-effective, but even cost saving. The emergence of the omicron variant and the prospect of future variants that might be more transmissible and reduce vaccine effectiveness only increases the value of face masks. FUNDING: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the City University of New York.

Estimated number of N95 respirators needed for healthcare workers in acute-care hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Due to shortages of N95 respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is necessary to estimate the number of N95s required for healthcare workers (HCWs) to inform manufacturing targets and resource allocation. METHODS: We developed a model to determine the number of N95 respirators needed for HCWs both in a single acute-care hospital and the United States. RESULTS: For an acute-care hospital with 400 all-cause monthly admissions, the number of N95 respirators needed to manage COVID-19 patients admitted during a month ranges from 113 (95% interpercentile range [IPR], 50-229) if 0.5% of admissions are COVID-19 patients to 22,101 (95% IPR, 5,904-25,881) if 100% of admissions are COVID-19 patients (assuming single use per respirator, and 10 encounters between HCWs and each COVID-19 patient per day). The number of N95s needed decreases to a range of 22 (95% IPR, 10-43) to 4,445 (95% IPR, 1,975-8,684) if each N95 is used for 5 patient encounters. Varying monthly all-cause admissions to 2,000 requires 6,645-13,404 respirators with a 60% COVID-19 admission prevalence, 10 HCW-patient encounters, and reusing N95s 5-10 times. Nationally, the number of N95 respirators needed over the course of the pandemic ranges from 86 million (95% IPR, 37.1-200.6 million) to 1.6 billion (95% IPR, 0.7-3.6 billion) as 5%-90% of the population is exposed (single-use). This number ranges from 17.4 million (95% IPR, 7.3-41 million) to 312.3 million (95% IPR, 131.5-737.3 million) using each respirator for 5 encounters. CONCLUSIONS: We quantified the number of N95 respirators needed for a given acute-care hospital and nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic under varying conditions.

Trends in COVID-19 vaccination intent and factors associated with deliberation and reluctance among adult homeless shelter residents and staff, 1 November 2020 to 28 February 2021 - King County, Washington.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about COVID-19 vaccination intent among people experiencing homelessness. This study assesses surveyed COVID-19 vaccination intent among adult homeless shelter residents and staff and identifies factors associated with vaccine deliberation (responded "undecided") and reluctance (responded "no"), including time trends. METHODS: From 11/1/2020-2/28/21, we conducted repeated cross-sectional surveys at nine shelters in King County, WA as part of ongoing community-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. We used a multinomial model to identify characteristics associated with vaccine deliberation and reluctance. RESULTS: A total of 969 unique staff (n = 297) and residents (n = 672) participated and provided 3966 survey responses. Among residents, 53.7% (n = 361) were vaccine accepting, 28.1% reluctant, 17.6% deliberative, and 0.6% already vaccinated, whereas among staff 56.2% were vaccine accepting, 14.1% were reluctant, 16.5% were deliberative, and 13.1% already vaccinated at their last survey. We observed higher odds of vaccine deliberation or reluctance among Black/African American individuals, those who did not receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, and those with lower educational attainment. There was no significant trend towards vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Strong disparities in vaccine intent based on race, education, and prior vaccine history were observed. Increased vaccine intent over the study period was not detected. An intersectional, person-centered approach to addressing health inequities by public health authorities planning vaccination campaigns in shelters is recommended. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917.

Lives and Costs Saved by Expanding and Expediting Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: With multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important. METHODS: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the United States population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (February 2020-December 2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage. RESULTS: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876 800 (217 000-2 398 000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40% and 50% coverage can prevent 1.5 million cases, 56 240 hospitalizations, and 6660 deaths; gain 77 590 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses. Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215 790 hospitalizations, 26 370 deaths, 206 520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with the time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the fall/winter.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak in a San Francisco Homeless Shelter.

We report the public health response to a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in a San Francisco shelter where 67% of residents and 17% of staff tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We describe the limited utility of case investigation, person-based contact tracing and symptom screening, and the benefits of mass testing in outbreak response.

Should countries switch to using five- or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines now that they are available?

INTRODUCTION: Single-dose rotavirus vaccines, which are used by a majority of countries, are some of the largest-sized vaccines in immunization programs, and have been shown to constrain supply chains and cause bottlenecks. Efforts have been made to reduce the size of the single-dose vaccines; however, with two-dose, five-dose and ten-dose options available, the question then is whether using multi-dose instead of single-dose rotavirus vaccines will improve vaccine availability. METHODS: We used HERMES-generated simulation models of the vaccine supply chains of the Republic of Benin, Mozambique, and Bihar, a state in India, to evaluate the operational and economic impact of implementing each of the nine different rotavirus vaccine presentations. RESULTS: Among single-dose rotavirus vaccines, using Rotarix RV1 MMP (multi-monodose presentation) led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability (49-80%) and total vaccine availability (56-79%), and decreased total costs per dose administered ($0.02-$0.10) compared to using any other single-dose rotavirus vaccine. Using two-dose ROTASIIL decreased rotavirus vaccine availability by 3-6% across each supply chain compared to Rotarix RV1 MMP, the smallest single-dose vaccine. Using a five-dose rotavirus vaccine improved rotavirus vaccine availability (52-92%) and total vaccine availability (60-85%) compared to single-dose and two-dose vaccines. Further, using the ten-dose vaccine led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability compared to all other rotavirus vaccines in both Benin and Bihar. CONCLUSION: Our results show that countries that implement five-dose or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines consistently reduce cold chain constraints and achieve higher rotavirus and total vaccine availability compared to using either single-dose or two-dose rotavirus vaccines.

Comparison of infection control strategies to reduce COVID-19 outbreaks in homeless shelters in the United States: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing. RESULTS: The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R0) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0 = 1.5), moderate-risk (R0 = 2.9), and high-risk (R0 = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 [treating 25% of symptomatic cases, reducing by 0.5 days, reproductive number (R0) 3.5, and starting treatment when 15% of the population has been exposed] to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases (treating 75% of all infected cases, reducing by 3.5 days, R0 2.0). With R0 2.5, reducing the average infectious period duration by 0.5 days for 25% of symptomatic cases averted 1.4 million cases and 99,398 hospitalizations; increasing to 75% of symptomatic cases averted 2.8 million cases. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R0 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study quantifies the potential effects of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period duration.

The Benefits of Vaccinating With the First Available COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: During a pandemic, there are many situations in which the first available vaccines may not have as high effectiveness as vaccines that are still under development or vaccines that are not yet ready for distribution, raising the question of whether it is better to go with what is available now or wait. METHODS: In 2020, the team developed a computational model that represents the U.S. population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread, and vaccines with different possible efficacies (to prevent infection or to reduce severe disease) and vaccination timings to estimate the clinical and economic value of vaccination. RESULTS: Except for a limited number of situations, mainly early on in a pandemic and for a vaccine that prevents infection, when an initial vaccine is available, waiting for a vaccine with a higher efficacy results in additional hospitalizations and costs over the course of the pandemic. For example, if a vaccine with a 50% efficacy in preventing infection becomes available when 10% of the population has already been infected, waiting until 40% of the population are infected for a vaccine with 80% efficacy in preventing infection results in 15.6 million additional cases and 1.5 million additional hospitalizations, costing $20.6 billion more in direct medical costs and $12.4 billion more in productivity losses. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there are relatively few situations in which it is worth foregoing the first COVID-19 vaccine available in favor of a vaccine that becomes available later on in the pandemic even if the latter vaccine has a substantially higher efficacy.

Vaccine Efficacy Needed for a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic as the Sole Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Given the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing owing to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. METHODS: In 2020, the team developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. RESULTS: Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number=2.5-3.5). This vaccine efficacy threshold rises to 70% when coverage drops to 75% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60% when reproduction number is 2.5, rising to 80% when coverage drops to 75% when the reproduction number is 3.5. To extinguish an ongoing epidemic, the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when coverage is 100% and at least 80% when coverage drops to 75% to reduce the peak by 85%-86%, 61%-62%, and 32% when vaccination occurs after 5%, 15%, and 30% of the population, respectively, have already been exposed to COVID-19 coronavirus. A vaccine with an efficacy between 60% and 80% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing).