The impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns accounting for antibody-dependent enhancement.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are approved, vaccination campaigns are launched, and worldwide return to normality seems within close reach. Nevertheless, concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines arose, due to their fast emergency approval. In fact, the problem of antibody-dependent enhancement was raised in the context of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We introduce a complex extension of the model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) to optimize vaccination strategies with regard to the onset of campaigns, vaccination coverage, vaccination schedules, vaccination rates, and efficiency of vaccines. Vaccines are not assumed to immunize perfectly. Some individuals fail to immunize, some reach only partial immunity, and-importantly-some develop antibody-dependent enhancement, which increases the likelihood of developing symptomatic and severe episodes (associated with higher case fatality) upon infection. Only a fraction of the population will be vaccinated, reflecting vaccination hesitancy or contraindications. The model is intended to facilitate decision making by exploring ranges of parameters rather than to be fitted by empirical data. We parameterized the model to reflect the situation in Germany and predict increasing incidence (and prevalence) in early 2021 followed by a decline by summer. Assuming contact reductions (curfews, social distancing, etc.) to be lifted in summer, disease incidence will peak again. Fast vaccine deployment contributes to reduce disease incidence in the first quarter of 2021, and delay the epidemic outbreak after the summer season. Higher vaccination coverage results in a delayed and reduced epidemic peak. A coverage of 75%-80% is necessary to prevent an epidemic peak without further drastic contact reductions. CONCLUSIONS: With the vaccine becoming available, compliance with contact reductions is likely to fade. To prevent further economic damage from COVID-19, high levels of immunization need to be reached before next year's flu season, and vaccination strategies and disease management need to be flexibly adjusted. The predictive model can serve as a refined decision support tool for COVID-19 management.

Preventing COVID-19 spread in closed facilities by regular testing of employees-An efficient intervention in long-term care facilities and prisons?

BACKGROUND: Different levels of control measures were introduced to contain the global COVID-19 pandemic, many of which have been controversial, particularly the comprehensive use of diagnostic tests. Regular testing of high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions, older than 60 years of age) has been suggested by public health authorities. The WHO suggested the use of routine screening of residents, employees, and visitors of long-term care facilities (LTCF) to protect the resident risk group. Similar suggestions have been made by the WHO for other closed facilities including incarceration facilities (e.g., prisons or jails), wherein parts of the U.S., accelerated release of approved inmates is taken as a measure to mitigate COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Here, the simulation model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) is extended to investigate the effect of regularly testing of employees to protect immobile resident risk groups in closed facilities. The reduction in the number of infections and deaths within the risk group is investigated. Our simulations are adjusted to reflect the situation of LTCFs in Germany, and incarceration facilities in the U.S. COVID-19 spreads in closed facilities due to contact with infected employees even under strict confinement of visitors in a pandemic scenario without targeted protective measures. Testing is only effective in conjunction with targeted contact reduction between the closed facility and the outside world-and will be most inefficient under strategies aiming for herd immunity. The frequency of testing, the quality of tests, and the waiting time for obtaining test results have noticeable effects. The exact reduction in the number of cases depends on disease prevalence in the population and the levels of contact reductions. Testing every 5 days with a good quality test and a processing time of 24 hours can lead up to a 40% reduction in the number of infections. However, the effects of testing vary substantially among types of closed facilities and can even be counterproductive in U.S. IFs. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of COVID-19 in closed facilities is unavoidable without a thorough screening of persons that can introduce the disease into the facility. Regular testing of employees in closed facilities can contribute to reducing the number of infections there, but is only meaningful as an accompanying measure, whose economic benefit needs to be assessed carefully.