February 15, 2021

Vaccines and testing

The current NZ Covid restrictions happened because someone at risk of infection in their job developed symptoms consistent with Covid and got tested.   With the first load of Pfizer vaccines arriving today, that raises a question about testing.

All the current vaccines seem to do best at preventing serious illness and death, and slightly less well at preventing mild illness. We don’t have really good data on preventing asymptomatic illness, but the information we have suggests that the trend continues and they’re somewhat less effective at preventing asymptomatic illness.  For most purposes that’s a great tradeoff — Covid is a global catastrophe only because people get sick and die, that’s how it’s different from the common colds caused by other coronaviruses.  For preventing border incursions things are more complicated.

When we vaccinate the first target group — people working at the border, the highest-risk healthcare workers, and their household contacts — we dramatically reduce the chance they will get sick or die from Covid, and we reduce, less dramatically, the chance they will get infected and pass the virus on.  We should expect fewer cases of the virus getting past the regular workplace testing — but when it does, it’s less likely to be stopped by someone stepping up and getting a test on their own.  Outbreaks are likely to be bigger by the time we see them, with a higher risk of needing lockdowns.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vaccinate border workers. The whole point of the vaccine is to stop people getting sick and dying, and that’s how we should use it. The answer isn’t to use MIQ workers as coal-mine canaries. We do need to think about how to change testing to respond to the new circumstances.  Many experts have already been calling for more frequent testing of high-risk workers, ideally using new saliva-based tests to reduce the ouch factor.  The case for more-frequent tests will be much stronger as we progressively vaccinate the people at highest risk and become less likely to pick up outbreaks by waiting for people to get sick. 

avatar

Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »

Comments

  • avatar
    Peter Alspach

    Does this have implications for ‘herd immunity’?

    4 years ago

    • avatar
      Thomas Lumley

      Yes. We don’t yet know what proportion of people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity. If the efficacy of 95% or so for the Pfizer and Novavax vaccines applied, we’d only need about 70% or so for Covid Classic, and a bit more for the B.1.1.7 strain. If it’s substantially lower, we might need more like the sort of vaccination coverage we have for the main childhood diseases.

      We could still get long-term elimination without quite reaching herd immunity, as we do for measles (which is so aggressively infectious that herd immunity needs damn near everyone to have two shots). A mixture of pretty good vaccine coverage plus tracing and isolation of outbreaks means that we’re not in a measles outbreak most of the time.

      4 years ago