Constructing an ethical framework for priority allocation of pandemic vaccines

Mathematical modelling of the 100-day target for vaccine availability after the detection of a novel pathogen: A case study in Indonesia

Globally, there has been a commitment to produce and distribute a vaccine within 100 days of the next pandemic. This 100-day target will place pressure on countries to make swift decisions on how to optimise vaccine delivery. We used data from the COVID-19 pandemic to inform mathematical modelling of future pandemics in Indonesia for a wide range of pandemic characteristics. We explored the benefits of vaccination programs with different start dates, rollout capacity, and age-specific prioritisation within a year of the detection of a novel pathogen. Early vaccine availability, public uptake of vaccines, and capacity for consistent vaccine delivery were the key factors influencing vaccine benefit. Monitoring age-specific severity will be essential for optimising vaccine benefit. Our study complements existing pathogen-specific pandemic preparedness plans and contributes a tool for the rapid assessment of future threats in Indonesia and similar middle-income countries.

COVID-19 vaccination preferences during a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration

In April 2021, the US paused Janssen (J&J) COVID-19 vaccination because of reported blood clots post vaccination. This paper explores how vaccine decision-making--receiving a J&J vaccine right away vs waiting for a Pfizer vaccine--changed during the pause. In an opt-in internet-based survey April 2021 with 915 participants, 37 % were not vaccinated. Of these, 18 % would accept a J&J vaccine, 5 % would wait 1 month for a Pfizer vaccine, 25 % would wait 3 months, and 52 % would not want any vaccine. Among the unvaccinated, 56 % had heard of blood clots; 61 % of these did not want any vaccine, compared to 41 % of those who had not heard of blood clots. Moreover, among those vaccine hesitant in general, 11 % would still obtain a J&J vaccine if offered right away. These findings may suggest spillover of brand-specific adverse event concerns to the vaccine product as a whole.

Having a real say: findings from first nations community panels on pandemic influenza vaccine distribution

BACKGROUND

Recent deliberations by Australian public health researchers and practitioners produced an ethical framework of how decisions should be made to distribute pandemic influenza vaccine. The outcome of the deliberations was that the population should be considered in two categories, Level 1 and Level 2, with Level 1 groups being offered access to the pandemic influenza vaccine before other groups. However, the public health researchers and practitioners recognised the importance of making space for public opinion and sought to understand citizens values and preferences, especially First Nations peoples.

METHODS

We conducted First Nations Community Panels in two Australian locations in 2019 to assess First Nations people's informed views through a deliberative process on pandemic influenza vaccination distribution strategies. Panels were asked to make decisions on priority levels, coverage and vaccine doses.

RESULTS

Two panels were conducted with eighteen First Nations participants from a range of ages who were purposively recruited through local community networks. Panels heard presentations from public health experts, cross-examined expert presenters and deliberated on the issues. Both panels agreed that First Nations peoples be assigned Level 1 priority, be offered pandemic influenza vaccination before other groups, and be offered two doses of vaccine. Reasons for this decision included First Nations people's lives, culture and families are important; are at-risk of severe health outcomes; and experience barriers and challenges to accessing safe, quality and culturally appropriate healthcare. We found that communication strategies, utilising and upskilling the First Nations health workforce, and targeted vaccination strategies are important elements in pandemic preparedness and response with First Nations peoples.

CONCLUSIONS

First Nations Community Panels supported prioritising First Nations peoples for pandemic influenza vaccination distribution and offering greater protection by using a two-dose full course to fewer people if there are initial supply limitations, instead of one dose to more people, during the initial phase of the vaccine roll out. The methodology and findings can help inform efforts in planning for future pandemic vaccination strategies for First Nations peoples in Australia.

A New Grey Target Evaluation Method of Science and Technology Talents Considering ‘Dominant-Implicit’ Reference Points

This paper studies the grey target evaluation model of science and technology talents by drawing on the ‘dominant-implicit’ double reference point. Input and output perspectives are adopted and developed to establish a dominant reference point for the evaluation of science and technology talents, which takes into account the ‘Peer-Status quo’ and ‘Baseline-History’, as well as an implicit reference point, such as the ‘Expectation-Opportunity’ and ‘Goal-Preference’. The framework of the grey target evaluation model for science and technology talents is then constructed and given a dual reference (dominant–implicit). The spherical grey target on the maximum, minimum and arithmetic mean values of the target effect measure values of each reference point is established to determine the reference point weight under the input and output indicators. This research will contribute to the comprehensive effect measure value and the ranking of results that relate to science and technology talents and will demonstrate that its applied method is feasible.

Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries

BACKGROUND

Pandemic planning has historically been oriented to respond to an influenza virus, with vaccination strategy being a key focus. As the current COVID-19 pandemic plays out, the Australian government is closely monitoring progress towards development of SARS-CoV2 vaccines as a definitive intervention. However, as in any pandemic, initial supply will likely be exceeded by demand due to limited manufacturing output.

METHODS

We convened community juries in three Australian locations in 2019 to assess public acceptability and perceived legitimacy of influenza pandemic vaccination distribution strategies. Preparatory work included literature reviews on pandemic vaccine allocation strategies and on vaccine allocation ethics, and simulation modelling studies. We assumed vaccine would be provided to predefined priority groups. Jurors were then asked to recommend one of two strategies for distributing remaining early doses of vaccine: directly vaccinate people at higher risk of adverse outcomes from influenza; or indirectly protect the general population by vaccinating primary school students, who are most likely to spread infection.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants of diverse backgrounds and ages were recruited through random digit dialling and topic-blinded social media advertising. Juries heard evidence and arguments supporting different vaccine distribution strategies, and questioned expert presenters. All three community juries supported prioritising school children for influenza vaccination (aiming for indirect protection), one by 10-2 majority and two by consensus. Justifications included that indirect protection benefits more people and is likely to be more publicly acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of an influenza pandemic, informed citizens were not opposed to prioritising groups at higher risks of adverse outcomes, but if resources and epidemiological conditions allow, achieving population benefits should be a strategic priority. These insights may inform future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies.