Abstract
Although the COVID-19 disease burden is heterogeneous across space, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommends an equitable spatial allocation of vaccines based, for example, on population size, in the interest of speed and workability. Utilizing economic–epidemiological modeling, we benchmark the performance of this ad hoc allocation rule by comparing it to the rule that minimizes the economic damages and expenditures over time, including a penalty cost representing the social costs of deviating from ad hoc allocations that favor speed and workability. Under different levels of vaccine scarcity and different demographic characteristics, we consider scenarios where length of immunity and compliance to travel restrictions vary, and consider the robustness of the rules when assumptions regarding these factors are incorrect. The benefits from deviating are especially high when immunity is permanent, when there is compliance to travel restrictions, when the supply of vaccine is low, and when there is heterogeneity in demographic characteristics. Interestingly, a lack of compliance to travel restrictions pushes the optimal allocations of vaccine towards the ad hoc and improves the relative robustness of the ad hoc rules, as the mixing of the populations reduces the spatial heterogeneity in disease burden.
JEL Classification C61, H12, H84, I18, Q54
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
F.M.C. acknowledges funding from the Henry A. Jastro Graduate Research Scholarship Award. K.S and E.H. acknowledge funding from the Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University. J.N.S. is a member of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics and acknowledges support from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (CA-D-ESP-7853-H).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No human or animal subjects were involved in this study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
† We thank for useful comments participants of the NatuRE Policy Lab at UC Davis (naturepolicy.ucdavis.edu), as well as participants of the internal seminars of the Department of Economics at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), and those of the Montreal Environment and Resource Economics Workshop.
‡ For the code used in this paper, see: https://github.com/fmcastonguay/SpatialAllocationCOVID19
Removed the section on antivirals and focussed the discussion more around vaccines and heterogeneous demographic characteristics.
6 Calibrated using a R0 estimate from Li et al. [4] and estimates of effects of nonpharmaceutical interventions from Tian et al. [5]; this yields a R0 of approximately 1.4 when there is compliance to travel restrictions and to match a R0 of approximately 2.1 when there is no compliance to travel restrictions; these two values representing respectively a “medium” and “low” effect of the nonpharmaceutical intervention.
7 Using estimates from Davies et al. [6]; this represents a 3-day latency period and a 5-day recovery period.
8 Representing a 6-month immunity period in the scenarios where we assume immunity is not permanent; based on [13].
9 Calibrated by using a case-fatility rate of 1.78%. Adjusted for mis- and under-reporting; see [7].
10 Representing the disability associated with severe lower respiratory tract infections because, to our knowledge, there are no official disability estimates associated with COVID-19; see [10].
11 Following Buckner et al. [14], we base this parameter value on the efficiency of the influenza vaccine [15]. Note that the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) [16] requires that a future COVID-19 vaccine must have an effectiveness of at least 50%.
12 Based on results from John et al. [12] that suggest a yearly discount rate between 0.3% and 1.5% for health related expenditures; we chose a 1.5% annual discount rate in the main set of results. This gives a monthly discount rate of r = 0.0013.
13 Assuming an individual requires two doses; based on current agreements between the U.S. federal government and biotech companies; see https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/06/899869278/prices-for-covid-19-vaccines-are-starting-to-come-into-focus. For a list of current vaccine prices, and particularly the price of the influenza vaccine, see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/index.html.
14 Value based on a certain proportion of the value of statistical life, c; in the base case we assume it is 2 orders of magnitude smaller.
15 Represents a value of statistical life of 10M U.S. dollars. Based on the value of a statistical life that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [9] uses: approximately $7.4 million ($2006) which is equivalent to approximately $9.54 million ($2020).
Data Availability
The parameter values used to run the numerical simulations are publicly available from the citations included in the text.
