RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Modelling optimal vaccination strategy for SARS-CoV-2 in the UK JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.09.22.20194183 DO 10.1101/2020.09.22.20194183 A1 Moore, Sam A1 Hill, Edward M. A1 Dyson, Louise A1 Tildesley, Michael J. A1 Keeling, Matt J. YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/24/2020.09.22.20194183.1.abstract AB The COVID-19 outbreak has highlighted our vulnerability to novel infections. Faced with this threat and no effective treatment, in line with many other countries, the UK adopted enforced social distancing (lockdown) to reduce transmission– successfully reducing the reproductive number R below one. However, given the large pool of susceptible individuals that remain, complete relaxation of controls is likely to generate a substantial second wave. Vaccination remains the only foreseeable means of both containing the infection and returning to normal interactions and behaviour. Here, we consider the optimal targeting of vaccination within the UK, with the aim of minimising future deaths or quality adjusted life year (QALY) losses. We show that, for a range of assumptions on the action and efficacy of the vaccine, targeting older age groups first is optimal and can avoid a second wave if the vaccine prevents transmission as well as disease.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Programme, Mathematical & Economic Modelling for Vaccination and Immunisation Evaluation, and Emergency Response; NIHR200411]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. It has also been supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the MathSys CDT [grant number EP/S022244/1] and by the Medical Research Council through the COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call [grant number MR/V009761/1]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The data were supplied from the CHESS database after anonymisation under strict data protection protocols agreed between the University of Warwick and Public Health England. The ethics of the use of these data for these purposes was agreed by Public Health England with the Governments SPI-M(O) / SAGE committees.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesFor model fitting, we used: data on cases, obtained from the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS) data set that collects detailed data on patients infected with COVID-19; data on COVID-19 deaths, obtained from Public Health England. These data contain confidential information, with public data deposition non-permissible for socioeconomic reasons. The CHESS data resides with the National Health Service (www.nhs.gov.uk) whilst the death data are available from Public Health England (www.phe.gov.uk).