IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgd/ppaper/183.html

COVID-19 Vaccine Predictions: Using Mathematical Modelling and Expert Opinions to Estimate Timelines and Probabilities of Success of COVID-19 Vaccines

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony McDonnell

    (Center for Global Development)

  • Robert Van Exan

    (Immunization Policy and Knowledge Translation)

  • Steve Lloyd

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Laura Subramanian

    (Ariadne Labs)

  • Kalipso Chalkidou

    (Center for Global Development)

  • Adrian La Porta

    (Bryden Wood)

  • Jiabin Li

    (Bryden Wood)

  • Eddine Maiza

    (Independent)

  • David Reader

    (Bryden Wood)

  • Julie Rosenberg

    (Ariadne Labs)

  • Jack Scannell

    (University of Edinburgh)

  • Vaughan Thomas

    (Tillingbourne Consulting and University College London)

  • Rebecca Weintraub

    (Ariadne Labs)

  • Prashant Yadav

    (Center for Global Development
    INSEAD)

Abstract

We collected publicly available information, interviewed experts, and used our diverse range of expertise to analyse and model the COVID-19 vaccine portfolio. There is significant uncertainty surrounding the development, approval and manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines. We find that the chances of developing a safe and efficacious vaccine are high but it will not occur in the immediate future, and it is unlikely to be the silver bullet that resolves the pandemic and returns our world to normal. Using inputs generated from expert interviews, our modelling suggests that there is a 50 percent chance that by the end of April 2021 there will be a vaccine safe and efficacious enough to win approval from a stringent regulator; by the end of 2021, this rises to 85 percent. Inputs more optimistic or pessimistic than those we gained through expert interviews lead to very different results. We also modelled how long it would take to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines once they are approved. Our modelling suggests that it will probably take more than a year to produce enough vaccines to inoculate the world’s 50 million medical staff, and that it could be September 2023 before we have enough doses for the whole world. It is not clear that these early vaccines will be efficacious enough to end the COVID-19 crisis. The vast majority of experts we spoke with predict that first-generation vaccines will not be effective enough to end the pandemic on their own, and that it will take longer to develop vaccines that fully prevent infection. This means that the world must be prepared to commit to other public health measures to control the spread of the virus for years, and should invest in a wider, more diversified portfolio of vaccines through better international collaboration and market incentives, as well as focus on diagnostics and treatments. All this while carefully managing the collateral damage from the ongoing policy response.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony McDonnell & Robert Van Exan & Steve Lloyd & Laura Subramanian & Kalipso Chalkidou & Adrian La Porta & Jiabin Li & Eddine Maiza & David Reader & Julie Rosenberg & Jack Scannell & Vaughan Thomas, 2020. "COVID-19 Vaccine Predictions: Using Mathematical Modelling and Expert Opinions to Estimate Timelines and Probabilities of Success of COVID-19 Vaccines," Policy Papers 183, Center for Global Development.
    • Handle: RePEc:cgd:ppaper:183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/covid-19-vaccine-predictions?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/COVID-19-Vaccine-Predictions-Full.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Ewen Callaway, 2020. "The unequal scramble for coronavirus vaccines — by the numbers," Nature, Nature, vol. 584(7822), pages 506-507, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:osf:socarx:x7q6c_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    3. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    4. Michele Dell'Era & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Overconfidence, Self-Financing and Capital Market Efficiency," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 11.06, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie, revised Nov 2012.
    5. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    6. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    7. Mark Simon & Rodney C. Shrader, 2022. "Financial Forecasting, Risk-taking and Venture Performance," European Journal of Business and Management Research, European Open Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-6, October.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    9. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    10. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 1998. "Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 22(2), pages 69-88, January.
    11. Kumar, Alok, 2007. "Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 362-390, November.
    12. Zellweger, Thomas & Sieger, Philipp & Halter, Frank, 2011. "Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 521-536, September.
    13. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    14. Azzi, Sarah & Bird, Ron, 2005. "Prophets during boom and gloom downunder," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 337-367, February.
    15. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    16. Marie-Claire Villeval & Nabanita Datta Gupta & Anders Poulsen, 2005. "Male and Female Competitive Behavior - Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 0512, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    17. Udo Milkau, 2017. "Risk Culture during the Last 2000 Years—From an Aleatory Society to the Illusion of Risk Control," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Cécile Fonrouge, 2002. "Les Dirigeants Dans Le Secteur Des Tic Pensent-Ils Différemment ?," Post-Print halshs-00692272, HAL.
    19. Malmendier, Ulrike & Tate, Geoffrey, 2008. "Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 20-43, July.
    20. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.
    21. P. Köllinger & M. Minniti, 2006. "Not for Lack of Trying: American Entrepreneurship in Black and White," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 59-79, August.

    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:cgd:ppaper:183. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgdevus.html .

    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.