Estimating Vaccination Effects and Variant Strains on COVID-19 outbreak course in Japan, as of August, 2021

Introduction

Wide coverage of COVID-19 vaccination has changed the outbreak situation in European countries and the US. Unfortunately, vaccination started only in February, 2021 in Japan, among the latest of starting dates in economically developed countries. As of August 9, 2021, the rate of completion for second dose was only about 32% in Japan (Figure 1) [1,2].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Vaccine coverage and shares of mutant strains N501Y and L452R in 2021

Note: Black line represents shares of N501Y. Gray line represents shares of L452R, in Tokyo measured at the left-hand side. Red scattered points denote vaccine coverage as defined by the first dose with a 12-day delay. Blue scattered points denote vaccine coverage defined by the second dose. The two vaccine coverage data were measured at the right-hand side. Because daily vaccine coverage was not reported on weekends and national holidays, data of vaccine coverage are missing for these days.

Fortunately, prevalence of COVID-19 has been much lower in Japan than in European countries and the US. For instance, prevalence in the US was approximately 10% as of June, 2021, but only 0.6% in Japan, which has used no lock down. Although reasons for such differences remain unknown, vaccine efficacy in Japan might be different from efficacy in US and European countries.

Vaccination provides personal protection, and eventually herd immunity to unvaccinated persons. The former was investigated in clinical trials [3], but the latter might depend on the surrounding society. Therefore, the present study examined vaccine effectiveness, including herd immunity in Japan. To measure the vaccine effectiveness, we estimated the effects of vaccine coverage on SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness in Japan.

At the time of starting vaccination in Japan, the mutant strain N501Y (alha strain) had been emerging and expanding to dominate infection. Subsequently, the new mutant strain L452R, delta strain, also appeared in May. Its infectiousness and pathogenicity were estimated as 35–90% higher than those of the original strain, mainly in the UK, which was circulating before the emerging variant strain [4–7]. Therefore, we consider the prevalence of these mutated strains together when evaluating vaccine effects.

As countermeasures against the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan, school closure and voluntary event cancellation were adopted from February 27, 2020 through the end of March. Large commercial events were cancelled. Subsequently, a state of emergency was declared for April 7 through 25 May, stipulating voluntary restrictions against leaving home. Consumer businesses such as retail shops and restaurants were shut down. During this period, the first peak of infection was reached on April 3. Infections subsequently decreased until July 29. The so-called “Go To Travel Campaign” (GTTC) started on July 22 as a 50% subsidized travel program aimed at supporting sightseeing businesses with government-issued coupons for use in shopping at tourist destinations. It was expected that the campaign might expand the outbreak. Thereafter, GTTC continued to the end of December, by which time a third wave of infection had emerged. The third wave in December, which was larger than either of the preceding two waves, reached its highest peak at the end of December. Therefore, GTTC was inferred as the main reason underlying the third wave [8].

To force the third wave lower, a second state of emergency was declared: from January 8, 2021 through March 15, 2021. However, the fourth wave emerged at the end of February, probably because of the spread of variant strains. Moreover, to support hosting of the Olympics and Paralympics games in Tokyo in July, a third emergency state was declared on April 25, 2021.

Although results have been mixed, some results of earlier studies suggest that COVID-19 might be associated with climate conditions [9–12]. If that were true for Japan, then GTTC might not be the main reason for the third wave. Moreover, mobility was inferred as the main cause of the outbreak dynamics in the first wave in Japan [13] and throughout the world [14–17]. This study was conducted to estimate vaccine coverage effects on SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness for the outbreak in Japan.

Methods

This study examined numbers of symptomatic patients reported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) for February 1, 2020 – July 18, 2021published [18] as of August 1, 2021. Some patients were excluded from data for Japan: those presumed to be persons infected abroad or infected as Diamond Princess passengers. Those patients were presumed not to represent community-acquired infection in Japan. For some symptomatic patients with unknown onset dates, we estimated onset dates from an empirical distribution with duration extending from onset to the report date among patients for whom the onset date had been reported.

Onset dates among patients who did not report this information and a reporting delay were adjusted using the same procedures as those used for our earlier research [19,20]. As described hereinafter, we estimated the onset dates of patients for whom onset dates had not been reported. Letting f(k) represent this empirical distribution of incubation period and letting N_t denote the number of patients for whom onset dates were not published and available at date t, then the number of patients for whom the onset date was known is t-1. The number of patients with onset date t-1 for whom onset dates were not available was estimated as f(1)N_t. Similarly, patients with onset date t-2 and for whom onset dates were not available were estimated as f(2)N_t. Therefore, the total number of patients for whom the onset date was not available, given an onset date of s, was estimated as Σ_k=1f(k)N_s+k for the long duration extending from s.

Moreover, the reporting delay for published data from MHLW might be considerable. In other words, if s+k is larger than that in the current period t, then s+k represents the future for period t. For that reason, N_s+k is not observable. Such a reporting delay engenders underestimation of the number of patients. For that reason, it must be adjusted as Σ_k=1^t-sf(k)N_s+k /Σ_k=1^t-sf(k). Similarly, patients for whom the onset dates were available are expected to be affected by the reporting delay. Therefore, we have M_s|_t/Σ_k=1^t-sf(k), where M_s|_t represents the reported number of patients for whom onset dates were period s as of the current period t.

We defined R(t) as the number of infected patients on day t divided by the number of patients who were presumed to be infectious. The number of infected patients was calculated from the epidemic curve by the onset date using an empirical distribution of the incubation period, which is Σ_k=1f(k)E_t+k, where E_t denotes the number of patients for whom the onset date was period t. The distribution of infectiousness in symptomatic and asymptomatic cases g(k) was assumed to be 30% on the onset day, 20% on the following day, and 10% for the subsequent five days [21]. Then the number of infectiousness patients was Σ_k=1g(k)E_t-k. Therefore, R(t) was defined as Σ_k=1f(k)E_t+k/Σ_k=1g(k)E_t-k.

Data indicating the shares of mutated variants among all cases were published by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Unfortunately, detailed information about mutated strains has not been published for the entirety of Japan. We used two measures for the mutant strains as shares, respectively, of N52Y and L452R [22].

We use average temperature and relative humidity data for Tokyo during the day as climate data because national average data are not available. We obtained data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/risk/obsdl/index.php). Additionally, we identified several remarkable countermeasures in Japan: two emergency status declarations, GTTC, and school closure and voluntary event cancellation (SCVEC). The latter, SCVEC, extended from February 27 through March: this countermeasure required school closure and cancellation of voluntary events, and even cancellation of private meetings. Then the first state of emergency was declared April 7. It ceased at the end of May. It required voluntary restriction against going out, school closures, and shutdown of businesses. To subsidize travel and shopping at tourist destinations, GTTC started on July 22. It was halted temporarily at the end of December. The second state of emergency was declared on January 7, 2021 for the 11 most affected prefectures. This countermeasure required restaurant closure at 8:00 p.m., with voluntary restrictions against going out, but it did not require school closure. It continued until March 21, 2021. The third state of emergency was declared on April 25, 2021 for four prefectures: Tokyo, Osaka, Hyogo, and Kyoto. Later, the application areas were extended gradually. They never covered the entirety of Japan.

To clarify associations among R(t) and vaccine coverage in addition to the mutant strains, climate, mobility, and countermeasures, we regressed the daily R(t) on dummy variables for daily vaccine coverage, weekly shares of N501Y and L452R strains, daily climate, mobility, and countermeasures using ordinary least squares regression. Temperatures were measured in degrees Celsius, with humidity, and mobility as percentages in regression, not as standardized. When some variables were found to be not significant, we excluded them as explanatory variables and estimated the equation again.

We examine two definitions for vaccine coverage: rate of receiving at least a single dose with a 12 day delay and the completion rate of the second dose. Delay in the former was the response period for increasing antibody [23]. If a vaccine perfectly protects the recipient from infection, the estimated coefficient of vaccine coverage would be 0.01 if one assumes an average of R(t) with no vaccination in the study period. That would mean that increasing vaccine coverage by one percentage point can be expected to reduce R(t) by one percentage point. If the estimated coefficient of vaccine coverage were smaller than 0.01, then it might reflect imperfect personal prevention. Conversely, if the estimated coefficients of vaccine coverage were smaller than 0.01, it would mean that herd immunity contributed to prevention of infection among non-recipients. We adopted 5% as the level at which to infer significance.

Results

Figure 1 depicts vaccine coverage for the first dose and second dose as scatter diagrams. It also shows the shares of mutant strains N501Y and L452R as bars. These are increasing almost monotonically during the period. Figure 2 depicts R(t) during the study period.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Effective reproduction number from February, 2020 through June 10, 2021.

Figure 3 presents an empirical distribution of the duration of onset to reporting in Japan. The maximum delay was 31 days. Figure 4 presents an empirical distribution of incubation periods among 91 cases for which the exposed date and onset date were published by MHLW in Japan. The mode was six days. The average was 6.6 days. The calculated R(t) is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Empirical distribution of duration from onset to report by MHLW, Japan.

Note: Bars represent the probability of duration from onset to report based on 657 patients for whom the onset date was available in Japan. Data were obtained from MHLW, Japan.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Empirical distribution of the incubation period published by MHLW, Japan.

Notes: Bars show the distribution of incubation periods for 91 cases for which the exposure date and onset date were published by MHLW, Japan. Patients for whom incubation was longer than 14 days are included in the bar shown for day 14.

Table 1 presents estimation results when vaccine coverage was defined by the proportion of those who were received the first dose. Table 2 shows the estimation result when vaccine coverage was defined as the complete rate of the second dose.

In both definitions of vaccine coverage, climate conditions, the third emergency status, vaccine coverage and the share of L452R were not significant. Therefore, we deleted these variables from the explanatory variables. All remaining variables in the specification were found to be significant. However, the estimated coefficient of vaccine coverage was positive and of N501Y was negative. These were inconsistent with the expected effect of vaccine and the mutated strain.

Mobility was found to be positive and significant. The first two emergency status periods and GTTC were found to be negative and significant. However, SCVEC was found to be significant and positive. Vaccine coverage was significantly negative, as expected. However, its estimated coefficients were approximately 0.5 for specification (2) and one for specification (4). These were 50–100 times larger than expectations from personal prevention.

Discussion

Estimation results showed that vaccine coverage was significant, but in either definition. Moreover, the share of the mutant strain did not increase infectiousness significantly. It was probably attributable to multicollinearity among vaccine coverage and the share of the mutated strain. However, even in the final specification, which is shown in the righ column in Table 1, H501N was found to be significantly negative, which was inconsistent with results reported from earlier studies. It might be attributable to the time during which N501Y had been spreading.

The third emergency status was not significant. That finding is probably attributable to an overlap of the period of the third emergency and initiation of the vaccine campaign or when the mutated strain had been becoming dominant among cases of infection. Consequently, multicollinearity might occur among these variables. In fact, if vaccine coverage and the share of the mutant strains is dropped from the full specification, then the estimated coefficient of the third emergency status was -0.9193, with a p value was 0.000. That estimated coefficients means that its effect was estimated to be larger than those of the first two emergency status periods.

The present study has some limitations. First, it was conducted only a short time after vaccination was started and the mutant strains were emerging. Accumulation of the data can be expected to affect the estimation results heavily.

Secondly, readers must be reminded when interpreting the obtained results that the obtained results do not indicate causality. This study demonstrated that negative association exists between N501Y and infectiousness. That finding does not necessarily mean that N501Y reduces infectiousness.

Conclusion

The estimation results yielded no evidence that vaccine coverage has reduced infectiousness and N501Y has higher infectiousness than the original strain. That finding is probably attributable to the data being obtained when vaccination was started, the rapid spread of the mutant strain, and the monotonically decreasing phase of R(t) during the same period. Accumulation of more data and longer periods of data accumulation might decrease that misleading effect.

The present study is based on the authors’ opinions: it does not reflect any stance or policy of their professionally affiliated bodies.

Ethical considerations

All information used for this study was published data on the web were used. There is therefore no ethical issue related to this study.

Competing Interest

No author has any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, to declare in relation to this study.