Corrected on Oct 1, 2021.
Source: the publisher, via Crossref · checked Oct 30, 2026 · Read the notice (opens in a new tab)
The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation
Frank G Sandmann, Nicholas G Davies, Anna Vassall and 48 more (opens in a new tab)
The Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2021 · CC BY
doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(21)00079-7 (opens in a new tab)
Abstract
Background In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the UK adopted mandatory physical distancing measures in March 2020. Vaccines against the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may become available as early as late 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing scenarios in the UK. Methods We used an age-structured dynamic-transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of immunisation programmes over ten years. Assuming vaccines are effective in 5-64 year olds, we compared vaccinating 90% of individuals in this age group to no vaccination. We assumed either vaccine effectiveness of 25% and 1-year protection and 90% re-vaccinated annually, or 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection and 10% re-vaccinated annually. Natural immunity was assumed to last 45 weeks in the base case. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing. We considered benefits from disease prevented in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs to the healthcare payer versus the national economy. We discounted at 3.5% annually and monetised health impact at £20,000 per QALY to obtain the net monetary value, which we explored in sensitivity analyses. Findings Without vaccination and physical distancing, we estimated 147.9 million COVID-19 cases (95% uncertainty interval: 48.5 million, 198.7 million) and 2.8 million (770,000, 4.2 million) deaths in the UK over ten years. Vaccination with 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection may stop community transmission entirely for several years, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic without highly effective vaccines. Introducing vaccination compared to no vaccination leads to economic gains (positive net monetary value) of £0.37 billion to +£1.33 billion across all physical distancing and vaccine effectiveness scenarios from the healthcare perspective, but net monetary values of physical distancing scenarios may be negative from societal perspective if the daily national economy losses are persistent and large. Interpretation Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Given uncertainty around both characteristics of the eventually licensed vaccines and long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, our study provides early insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era from an economic and epidemiological perspective. Research in Context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed and medRxiv for economic evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with the search string (coronavirus OR COVID OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (vaccin* OR immunisation) AND ((economic evaluation) OR (cost effectiveness analysis)) AND 2020[dp] on September 21, 2020, with no language restrictions. We found one pre-print that valued health outcomes in monetary terms and explored the additional impact of vaccines in a cost-benefit analysis of physical distancing for the USA; no study focused on vaccines in a full economic evaluation. Added value of this study With a growing number of vaccine candidates under development and having entered clinical trials, our study is to our knowledge the first to explore the health and economic value of introducing a national SARS-CoV-2 immunisation programme. A programme with high vaccine effectiveness and long-lasting protection may stop the community transmission entirely for a couple of years, but even a vaccine with 25% vaccine effectiveness is worthwhile to use; even at short-lived natural and vaccine-induced protections. After an initial lockdown, voluntary physical distancing as a sole strategy risks a large second epidemic peak, unless accompanied by highly effective immunisation. Compared to no vaccination, introducing vaccination leads to positive net monetary value across physical distancing scenarios from the healthcare perspective, subject to the long-run vaccine price and cost-effectiveness of other treatments (e.g. new drugs). The net monetary value of immunisation decreases if vaccine introduction is delayed, natural immunity is long or vaccine-induced protection is short. Intermittent physical distancing leads to negative net benefits from the perspective of the wider economy if the daily national income losses are persistent and large. Implications of all the available evidence Our model findings highlight the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to control the COVID-19 epidemic. Despite the many uncertainties, continued physical distancing may be needed to reduce community transmission until vaccines with sufficiently high vaccine effectiveness and long-lasting protection are available. Our study provides first broad health-economic insights rather than precise quantitative projections given the many uncertainties and unknown characteristics of the vaccine candidates and aspects of the long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, and the value of vaccines will ultimately depend on other socioeconomic and health-related policies and population behaviours.
References 49
- 1.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 2.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 3.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 4.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 5.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 6.
- 7.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 8.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 9.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 14.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 15.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 16.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 17.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 18.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 19.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 20.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 21.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 25.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 26.
- 27.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 28.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 29.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 30.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 31.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 32.
- 33.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 34.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 38.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 39.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 40.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 41.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 46.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 47.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 48.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
- 49.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
Cited by papers we hold 3
- The impact of COVID-19 vaccination in prisons in England and Wales: a metapopulation model · 2022Not checked
- Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus · 2021No notice
- Addressing the COVID-19 emergency during the ongoing political and economic crisis in Fragile Lebanon: a call to action · 2021Not checked
Questions about this paper
We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.