Skip to main content



commentary Commentary

Commentary: Young or old first? Timing of COVID-19 vaccination could decide

It is assumed that the elderly should be first in line to be vaccinated but mathematical modelling suggests priority can be given to likely spreaders like younger adults, say experts.

Commentary: Young or old first? Timing of COVID-19 vaccination could decide

A man receives the first of two Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine jabs, at Guy's Hospital, at the start of the largest ever immunisation programme in the British history, in London, Britain December 8, 2020. Victoria Jones/Pool via REUTERS

ONTARIO, Canada: COVID-19 vaccines are on the horizon. Lately, it seems like each week brings news of another clinical trial demonstrating vaccine efficacy. 

But if supplies are initially limited, decision-makers will need to make hard choices about who should get them first.

One approach is to prioritise groups who are most vulnerable to serious outcomes like hospitalisation and death, such as the elderly. Another approach is to prioritise groups who are most responsible for spreading the infection.

READ: British grandmother is first in the world to get Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outside trial

READ: Commentary: Why the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is a global game-changer

The question is which approach will work best in a given population.

Our team decided to study this question using our combined 30 years of experience in population modelling, including the 2003-04 SARS outbreaks and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. 

We developed a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination in Ontario, published as a preprint (a manuscript yet to be checked for errors).

The types of models we employ are not mere mathematical abstractions or theories, but rather have been validated for many similar respiratory infections over the past three decades.

A nurse holds a phial of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at University Hospital in Coventry, December 8. Jacob King/Pool via REUTERS

We found that if vaccination starts sufficiently early in 2021, a strategy of vaccinating individuals 60 years of age and older will prevent the most deaths.

But more surprisingly, we found that if the vaccine is not available until later in 2021, we might be able to prevent more deaths by first vaccinating younger age groups — working-age adults and children — who have more contacts with others.


To understand this result, we must first explain that vaccines work in two ways. First, they provide direct protection: The vaccinated person doesn’t get infected.

Second, they also provide indirect protection: The vaccinated person does not pass infection on to others. We do not yet know if the COVID-19 vaccines will prevent the passing of infection to others, but such transmission-blocking effects are a common feature of most licensed vaccines.

READ: Commentary: A vaccine is on the horizon. But most Singaporeans are adopting a wait-and-see attitude

READ: UK issues anaphylaxis warning on Pfizer vaccine after adverse reactions

If enough people are vaccinated, the level of indirect protection in a population can be high. And indirect protection can be very powerful. Had it not been for indirect protection, smallpox would never have been globally eradicated in 1977.

Once a sufficient number of individuals are vaccinated, herd immunity is achieved. But it is achieved through a kinder, gentler means than letting everyone become infected, and the virus is thereby eliminated from the population.

Hence, indirect protection can have very strong effects in real populations.

This is not just the prediction of a mathematical model. This effect has been observed in empirical data on influenza vaccination from Japan, where vaccination of schoolchildren was found to reduce deaths in the elderly. 

A patient with COVID-19 is helped by a caretaker during a physical therapy session at the Vitalia Canillejas elderly care home in Madrid, Spain, Nov 23, 2020. (Photo: AP/Bernat Armangue) Virus Outbreak Europe Nursing Homes

Similarly, some jurisdictions practice cocooning, where if a vaccine does not work in a vulnerable person due to their advanced age or an immature immune system, we vaccinate the people around them instead. This approach is also recommended for the COVID-19 vaccines.


We think the switch in strategy between early and late 2021 predicted by our model occurs because indirect protection from vaccines will become stronger, later on in the pandemic.

(Graphic: Chris Bauch, Madhur Anand, Peter C Jentsch)

In the early stages of a pandemic, most people are still susceptible. Therefore, if a few individuals are immune because of the vaccine, they don’t protect their contacts since there are too many other ways their contacts could get infected, as illustrated on the left side of the above graphic.

However, as time goes on, more individuals will become infected and gain immunity. Under these conditions, adding more immune individuals to the population by vaccination can work more effectively to protect their contacts, as seen on the right side of the above graphic.

READ: Commentary: A COVID-19 vaccine in Singapore? Here's what has to happen first

In other words, chains of transmission are replaced by chains of protection. At some point, more deaths can be prevented through indirect protection instead of direct protection.


Our model was designed to provide insight into how vaccines work, and not to comment on specific policy recommendations. There are also important caveats to our study. 

For instance, we did not study a strategy of prioritising residents of long-term care facilities, most of whom are older than 60 years of age.

We also assumed that COVID-19 immunity is long-lasting, although evidence on this is still accumulating. However, the effect we identify relies upon well-validated principles of infectious disease epidemiology, and we found the effect persisted under the various scenarios explored by our modelling.

To apply these ideas in practice, public health authorities would first need to assess population immunity through a survey that tests population blood samples for COVID-19 antibodies a few months before vaccination starts.

A customer wearing a mask walks out of a Walgreen's pharmacy store and past a sign advising that COVID-19 vaccines are not available there yet during the coronavirus outbreak, Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2020, in Seattle. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

They could then plug these numbers into a mathematical model to determine whether they should prioritise the elderly, or instead prioritise groups that spread the infection the most.

We think this approach could be feasible. Standard mathematical modelling frameworks could be used, and their predictions are more reliable when predicting months ahead instead of an entire year.

Also, antibody surveys are a more accurate way to determine a population’s infection history than case notifications, which would make the model predictions less subject to uncertainties.


Some might argue that the clear ethical choice is to give the vaccine first to those who are most vulnerable to fatality from the disease. We argue that decisions should be based on best available evidence and consider both direct and indirect effects.

If the evidence suggests we can prevent more deaths in the elderly by vaccinating other age groups first, then that is the ethical decision.

READ: Commentary: Let’s switch from wanting to be COVID-free to becoming COVID-vigilant

In other words, the right thing to do requires careful and sometimes nuanced thinking, but always evidence.

Indirect protection may seem like an abstract concept in the grip of a fast-moving pandemic. However, looking ahead, and with hope, we think it will be practically impossible to globally eradicate COVID-19 without it, just as in the case of smallpox.

Vaccination policies will have to take advantage of indirect protection sooner or later, in one context or another. 

Chris Bauch is a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Waterloo, Madhur Anand is Professor and Director, Global Ecological Change & Sustainability Laboratory, at the University of Guelph and Peter C. Jentsch is a PhD Candidate, Applied Mathematics, at the University of Waterloo. This commentary first appeared in The Conversation.

Listen to infectious disease expert outline what's needed to get a vaccine manufactured, transported and administered in our Heart of the Matter podcast: 

Source: CNA/cr


Also worth reading