IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0000498.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?

Author

Listed:
  • Zied Ben Chaouch
  • Andrew W Lo
  • Chi Heem Wong

Abstract

Following the approval by the FDA of two COVID-19 vaccines, which are administered in two doses three to four weeks apart, we simulate the effects of various vaccine distribution policies on the cumulative number of infections and deaths in the United States in the presence of shocks to the supply of vaccines. Our forecasts suggest that allocating more than 50% of available doses to individuals who have not received their first dose can significantly increase the number of lives saved and significantly reduce the number of COVID-19 infections. We find that a 50% allocation saves on average 33% more lives, and prevents on average 32% more infections relative to a policy that guarantees a second dose within the recommended time frame to all individuals who have already received their first dose. In fact, in the presence of supply shocks, we find that the former policy would save on average 8, 793 lives and prevents on average 607, 100 infections while the latter policy would save on average 6, 609 lives and prevents on average 460, 743 infections.

Suggested Citation

  • Zied Ben Chaouch & Andrew W Lo & Chi Heem Wong, 2022. "Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(7), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000498
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000498
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000498&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000498. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.