First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Pausing a vaccine rollout could have huge negative cons...

South Africa

GROUNDUP Op-Ed

Pausing a vaccine rollout could have huge negative consequences

Sister Zoliswa Gidi-Dyosi, a registered nurse and midwife, was the first recipient of the Covid-19 vaccine at the Khayelitsha Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. (Archive photo: Jeffrey Abrahams)

Interrupting a programme early leads to many more infections than one might naively estimate.

First published by GroundUp.

Tough decisions appear to be everywhere in the Covid-19 pandemic era, especially in the area of regulation and policy, where imperfectly known benefits need to be traded against the costs of either supporting this or opposing that. Right now, the world is in a crucial stage of early monitoring of vaccine programmes. A number of national vaccination rollouts have been paused in recent weeks because of concerns about the risk of rare but sometimes fatal side effects.

The details of what challenges this presents to those in the unenviable position of having to make the key decisions are far too complex to be sensibly reviewed here. But there is an important insight that epidemiological modelling can show.

In short, hitting the pause button at an early stage of a vaccination programme can have larger-than-naively-expected consequences in the long run. It is probably better to continue vaccinating, while concerns are rapidly investigated. It is better to defer decisions to pause until, and only if, there is a specific course correction that has been decided.

If possible, epidemiological models should be adapted to local conditions to run pause scenarios in order to shed light on the downside of programme interruptions, before such interruptions are implemented.

We can show this without drowning ourselves in technical details. We developed some simple epidemic model scenarios which, while they cannot seriously “predict” the future in the real world, can realistically show key features of real-world interaction between transmission and population-level immunity.

Our model world has these features:

  • People can spread and acquire an infection, which lasts on average for about a week, and from which they are immune upon recovery.
  • We start our scenario with a very low level of transmission, but with some background level of immunity acquired from previous waves.
  • A vaccination campaign begins about the time that the next wave starts, and we have the option of pausing it, at some point, for some period of time.

All the details of how infectious the bug is, how fast the vaccine rollout is, when it starts, and whether and for how long it is paused, are tunable with inputs to the model. There are numerous details which we can’t explain fully here, but this document explains our model in more detail so that interested readers can test our results for themselves.

Idealised features such as, for example, that all people are equally good at spreading infection or that vaccination confers perfect immunity, do not really affect the findings of the model.

The basic output which this model generates is displayed below:

The horizontal axis shows the passing of time (nominally in days, but it does not matter). Various key quantities are indicated on either the left or right vertical axes.

S: the proportion of the population which is still susceptible to infection (right vertical axis)

I: the proportion of the population which is currently infected (left vertical axis)

R: the proportion of the population which has been infected but is already recovered (right vertical axis)

V: the proportion of the population which has been vaccinated (left vertical axis)

The most important curve, for the present argument, is the blue one, which indicates the cumulative cases of infection over time. The value which the blue curve reaches at the right side of the graph is the overall cost of the outbreak in terms of infections that the population has had to endure.

Note that the green line shows a steady rate of vaccination, with 20% (see the left vertical axis) of the population vaccinated at the end of the displayed scenario.

We can temporarily pause the vaccination programme whenever we want, for some period of time. Pausing it for two weeks, when the infection peak has almost passed, is shown as:

See how the pause reflects in the flat part of the green line, and how it impacts the blue line. Pausing vaccination for two weeks, just a few days after beginning it, is shown as:

Note that the early pause is considerably more impactful than a late pause. (Graph: supplied by GroundUp)

Note that the early pause is considerably more impactful than a late pause. In fact, the increase in cases produced by the early pause is greater than the number of people who missed their vaccination who become infected. It is even greater than the total number of people who would have been vaccinated during the pause.

It is very difficult to put real-world numbers to this kind of dynamic, but the broad point is robust.

This is a consequence of the fact that vaccination not only protects the people who are vaccinated; it also protects everyone else because it limits transmission. By pausing early, one risks missing out on a significant boost in early immunity which can have a substantial impact on the unfolding of an imminent outbreak.

You may be able to see the effect more clearly if you see all three graphs as an animation. Note how in the early pause scenario the current infections line (red) has a considerably bigger bump, and the cumulative infections (blue line) endpoint is much higher.

So, again, in short: Hitting the pause button at an early stage of a vaccination programme can have larger-than-naively-expected consequences in the long run. DM

Professor Welte is with the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis at Stellenbosch University. Professor Ouifki is in the Mathematics Department at the University of Pretoria. Here is a full description of the model.

 

Gallery

"Information pertaining to Covid-19, vaccines, how to control the spread of the virus and potential treatments is ever-changing. Under the South African Disaster Management Act Regulation 11(5)(c) it is prohibited to publish information through any medium with the intention to deceive people on government measures to address COVID-19. We are therefore disabling the comment section on this article in order to protect both the commenting member and ourselves from potential liability. Should you have additional information that you think we should know, please email [email protected]"

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted