medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Projecting the impact of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccination campaign in ,

Thomas N. Vilches,1 Kevin Zhang,2,† Robert Van Exan,3 Joanne M. Langley,4 Seyed M. Moghadas5

1 Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computing, University of Campinas, Campinas SP, Brazil 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of , Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8 Canada 3 Immunization Policy & Knowledge Translation, Trent Lakes, Ontario, K0M 1A0, Canada 4 Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre and Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3K 6R8 Canada 5 Agent-Based Modelling Laboratory, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3 Canada

†Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract Background: Results of phase III vaccine clinical trials against COVID-19, although encouraging and well above initial expectations, have only reported on efficacy against disease and its severity. We evaluated the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 outbreak and disease outcomes in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We used an agent-based transmission model and parameterized it with COVID-19 characteristics, demographics of Ontario, and age-specific clinical outcomes derived from outbreak data. We implemented a two-dose vaccination program, prioritizing healthcare workers and high-risk individuals, with 40% vaccine coverage and vaccine efficacy of 95% against disease. Vaccines were distributed at a rate of 30 doses per day per 10,000 population with a 6- day schedule per week. We projected the impact of vaccination on attack rates, hospitalizations, and deaths. For scenario analyses, we varied the vaccine efficacy against infection, under the assumption of 5% pre-existing population immunity. Results: With no protection against infection, a two-dose vaccination campaign with a time interval of 21 days between doses reduced attack rate, hospitalizations, and deaths by 44.6% (95% CrI: 34.5% - 54.3%), 63.4% (95% CrI: 56.1% - 69.9%), and 70.0% (95% CrI: 62.6% - 75.8%), respectively. These reductions were improved with increased vaccine efficacy against infection, with similar estimated ranges in the corresponding scenarios with a 28-day time interval between vaccine doses. Conclusions: Vaccination can substantially mitigate ongoing COVID-19 outbreaks, even when vaccines offer limited protection against infection. This impact is founded upon a relatively strong vaccine efficacy against disease and severe outcomes.

Keywords: COVID-19; vaccination; outbreak simulation

NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Introduction Despite unprecedented public health measures, such as stay-at-home orders, school closures, and physical distancing (1–4), the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to have severe global health and economic consequences (5,6). In Canada, these measures have been comparatively effective in flattening initial outbreaks (7,8). However, the devastating outcomes of the second wave and the high level of susceptibility to COVID-19 (8) have underscored the need for a safe and effective vaccine to control ongoing outbreaks. The target product profile (TPP) by the World Health Organization (WHO) provided a roadmap for potential COVID-19 vaccine candidates (9). The TPP indicated a preference for candidates that demonstrate a population-based efficacy of at least 70%, and a point estimate of 50%, against transmission and/or severe disease outcomes. Results from phase III vaccine clinical trials have been encouraging thus far, with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna reporting an efficacy of over 90% against symptomatic disease (10,11), exceeding the TTP target range. As of December 9, 2020, Health Canada has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for distribution (12), with 3 other candidates under review (13). Therefore, there is an urgent need to understand the potential population-level impact of vaccination campaigns with vaccine prioritization (14). We sought to evaluate the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination campaign, based on a scenario with two doses distributed either 21 days or 28 days apart, on attack rate and adverse clinical outcomes in Ontario. We extended an agent-based model of disease transmission (15) to include vaccination with an age-specific uptake distribution similar to that of past seasonal influenza epidemics and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (16,17). We evaluated a roll-out strategy that prioritizes higher risk adults (i.e., healthcare workers, elderly, and comorbid individuals), followed by the general population, to minimize transmission and severe outcomes (14). Our results indicate that vaccination, even with a vaccine that offers limited protection against infection, could have a large impact on reducing hospitalizations and deaths in Ontario.

Methods

Model structure We extended a previously established agent-based COVID-19 transmission model (15) and included vaccination to simulate outbreak scenarios. The natural history of COVID-19 was implemented in the model by considering individual status as susceptible; latently infected (not yet infectious); asymptomatic (infected and infectious but with no symptoms); pre-symptomatic (infected, infectious and in the stage before symptomatic illness); symptomatic with either mild or severe/critical illness; recovered (and not infectious); and dead (Appendix, Figure A1). We binned the model population into five age groups of 0-4, 5-19, 20-49, 50-64, and 65+ years old based on the demographics of Ontario, Canada (18), and parameterized the model with estimates of the proportion of the population with comorbidities associated with severe COVID- 19 (Appendix Table A1) (19,20). Interactions between individuals were informed using an empirically determined contact network (21). The daily number of contacts for each individual

1 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

was sampled from a negative-binomial distribution with age-dependent mean and standard deviation (Appendix, Tables A2).

Disease dynamics We implemented disease transmission in a probabilistic manner whereby susceptible individuals were exposed to infectious individuals (i.e., asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic stages of the disease). Infected individuals entered a latent period as part of an average incubation period of 5.2 days (22). For those who went on to develop symptomatic disease, the incubation period included a pre-symptomatic stage prior to the onset of symptoms (23). The duration of the pre-symptomatic stage was sampled from a Gamma distribution with a mean of 2.3 days (23). The infectious period post-symptom onset was sampled from a Gamma distribution with an average of 3.2 days (24). We considered an age-dependent probability of developing mild, severe, or critical illness after symptom onset. Infected individuals who did not develop symptoms remained asymptomatic after the latent period until recovery. Asymptomatic individuals were infectious for an average of 5 days, which was sampled from a Gamma distribution (24,25). Based on the number of secondary cases generated during each stage of the disease (26), we parameterized the infectivity of asymptomatic, mild symptomatic, and severe symptomatic stages to be 11%, 44%, and 89% relative to the pre-symptomatic stage (27). We assumed that recovered individuals could not be re-infected during the same outbreak scenario.

Infection outcomes In our model, mild symptomatic cases recovered without the need for hospitalization. Persons with severe illness or illness requiring critical care used hospital beds in this model. We parameterized the model for the use of intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU beds based on recent COVID-19 hospitalization data stratified by the presence of comorbidities in Ontario (20). We assumed that all symptomatic cases who were not hospitalized self-isolated during the symptomatic period. For self-isolated cases, daily contacts were sampled from an age- dependent contact matrix derived from a representative sample population during COVID-19 lockdown (28). The time from symptom onset to hospital admission was uniformly sampled in the range of 2 to 5 days (15,29). The lengths of non-ICU and ICU stays were sampled from Gamma distributions with means of 12.4 and 14.4 days, respectively (30,31).

Vaccination We implemented a two-dose vaccination campaign, achieving 40% vaccine coverage of the population over the course of the campaign. Vaccine distribution mirrored that of the age- specific vaccine coverage estimates for seasonal and 2009 pandemic influenza (16). We reviewed vaccine program distribution rates for influenza to determine the roll-out capacity (17,32–34). With the expected shortage of vaccines in the initial roll-out, we assumed that 30 individuals per 10,000 population are vaccinated per day in Ontario. A 40% vaccine coverage was achieved within 40 weeks with a 6-day immunization schedule per week. Vaccination was sequential with prioritization of: (i) healthcare workers, individuals with comorbidities, and those aged 65 and older (i.e., protection cohort); followed by (ii) individuals

2 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

aged 18-64 (i.e., disruption minimization cohort) (14). Children under 18 years of age were not vaccinated. The vaccine coverage in each cohort (Appendix: Table A3) followed the uptake for different age groups reported in Canadian influenza vaccination coverage studies (16,35). Pre- existing immunity as a result of a primary infection with COVID-19 was not a factor in the vaccination of individuals.

Timelines of vaccination and vaccine efficacy

We considered a vaccination campaign with two doses distributed either 21 days or 28 days apart. Based on results of clinical trials (10,11), we considered vaccine efficacies of 52% and

95% against symptomatic disease, Ve(d), after the first and second doses, respectively (36). If individuals developed COVID-19, we also implemented an equivalent reduction in the likelihood of developing severe disease. We implemented a 14-day interval after the first dose to reach

half of Ve(d) and a 7-day interval after the second dose to reach Ve(d). In the absence of data for

the protection efficacy against infection, Ve(i), we varied this parameter and considered

scenarios in which (i) the vaccine did not protect against infection (i.e.; Ve(i)=0); (ii) vaccine efficacy against infection was 50% lower than the protection against disease (i.e.;

Ve(i)=0.5Ve(d)); and (iii) vaccine efficacy against infection was equal to the protection against

disease (i.e.; Ve(i)=Ve(d)) after each dose of the vaccine.

The vaccine-induced protection was implemented as a reduction factor in disease transmission, likelihood of developing symptoms, and severity of disease when a vaccinated individual encountered an infectious person and if infection occurred. For individuals with comorbidities or

those aged 65 and older, we assumed a reduction in vaccine protection efficacy: Vp = (1-q)Ve, where q was sampled uniformly in the range of 10-50% for each vaccinated individual. This parameterization was based on estimated reductions in influenza vaccine effectiveness in comorbid individuals and the elderly (37).

Model scenarios We assumed a 5% level of pre-existing immunity accrued prior to vaccination based on recent seroprevalence studies (8). To distribute this level of immunity, we first simulated the model in the absence of vaccination and derived the infection rates in different age groups when the overall attack rate reached 5% of the population. We then used the age-specific attack rates to initialize the proportion of the population with immunity for the vaccination model.

Model implementation We calibrated the transmission probability per contact to the effective reproduction number

Re=1.2 to account for the effect of current public health measures in Ontario, Canada (38,39). With parameters provided in Table 1, each simulation was seeded with one initial case in the latent stage in a population of 10,000 individuals, and the results for incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths were averaged over 1000 independent Monte-Carlo realizations. The model was coded in Julia language and is available at: https://github.com/thomasvilches/vac_covid_ontario.

3 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Results Without vaccination, we projected an attack rate of 5.5% (95% CrI:4.8% - 6.2%) under the current mitigation measures. The average number of hospital admissions was 12.2 (95% CrI: 10.9 - 13.7) per 10,000 population. We projected a cumulative 2.0 (95% CrI: 1.8 - 2.3) deaths per 10,000 over the course of the outbreak.

Vaccination campaign We assumed that 0.3% of the population was vaccinated per day under the existing distribution capacity. Vaccination substantially reduced the magnitude and duration of outbreaks in all scenarios of vaccine efficacy against infection (Figure 1). For a vaccination campaign with a 21- day interval between the first and second doses, we projected the relative reduction of attack rate, compared to no vaccination, to range from 44.6% (95% CrI: 34.5% - 54.3%) when the vaccine offered no protection against infection to 61.8 (95% CrI: 54.4% - 68.7%) when vaccine efficacy against infection was equal to its efficacy against disease (Figure 2A). Insert Figure 1 Here Vaccination was more effective in reducing adverse outcomes. When the vaccine only offered protection against disease but not infection, vaccination reduced hospitalizations and deaths by 63.4% (95% CrI: 56.1% - 69.9%) and 70.0% (95% CrI: 62.6% - 75.8%), respectively, compared to no vaccination. These relative reductions increased to 71.4% (95% CrI: 65.9% - 76.7%) and 77.0% (95% CrI: 71.8% - 81.6%) for hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, when vaccine efficacy against infection was assumed to be the same as vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease. In all scenarios, the highest benefit of vaccination was achieved in reducing deaths (Figure 2). We observed a similar range of reduction in attack rates, hospitalizations and deaths in the corresponding scenarios with a 28-day time interval between vaccine doses (Figure 2B). Insert Figure 2 Here

Hospital bed utilization In the absence of vaccination, we projected that an outbreak would require an average of 143.6 (95% CrI: 126.3 - 163.6) hospital bed-days per 10,000 population (Figure 3). Vaccination significantly reduced hospital bed-days to 52.6 (95% CrI: 44.2 - 60.2), 46.9 (95% CrI: 40.4 - 54.4), and 40.6 (95% CrI: 35.0 - 46.6) per 10,000 population, when vaccine efficacy against infection was: 0%, 50% lower than its efficacy against disease, and equal to its protection against disease, respectively. The reduction of hospital bed-days were similar in the corresponding scenarios when the time interval between vaccine doses was 28 days (Figure 3).

Insert Figure 2 Here

Discussion

4 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Results of phase III clinical trials, although encouraging and well above initial expectations, have only reported on vaccine efficacy against disease and its severity. Currently, there is no data on the efficacy of vaccines against infection. We therefore evaluated vaccination strategies by varying the vaccine efficacy in preventing infection. Our results show that the impact of a COVID-19 vaccine on reducing incidence and outcomes can be substantial, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by over 60%, even with a vaccine which offers no protection against infection. This impact is founded upon a relatively strong vaccine efficacy against disease and severe outcomes, which masks the potential consequences of a leaky vaccine with imperfect protection against infection. Our estimates rely on achieving a vaccine coverage of 40% over the course of 40 weeks and vaccination of a relatively large proportion of high-risk individuals. This coverage and timeline, however, is contingent upon the manufacturing capacity, storage, and distribution of vaccines. Moreover, despite proven safety and efficacy of current vaccines in phase III clinical trials, vaccine hesitancy and concerns about the novelty of these platforms, as well as the speed of vaccine development may result in a lower uptake than the coverages assumed in our model. Therefore, a highly efficient national adverse event reporting system will be critical to supporting public confidence and improving vaccine uptake. Our results should be interpreted within the context of study limitations. We assumed that the efficacy of a vaccine would be reduced by 10-50% in comorbid and elderly individuals, based on estimated reductions for influenza vaccine efficacy (37). If vaccination performed equally well in comorbid individuals, we would expect a higher reduction for adverse clinical outcomes. We did not consider drop out over the course of the vaccination program, which would affect the level of protection conferred by vaccination. Finally, we did not consider children under 18 years of age for vaccination in these scenarios. Phase III trials are mainly performed in adults and it may be several months before trial results in children are available to support vaccination programs in this population. This study indicates that, while vaccination could significantly mitigate the severity of outbreaks, it is unlikely to eliminate the need for other non-pharmaceutical interventions before reaching a sufficiently high level of population immunity. Nevertheless, our results show that vaccination is a key public health measure in the fight against COVID-19.

Competing Interest. JML’s institution has received funding for research studies from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Janssen and Pfizer. JML holds the CIHR-GSK Chair in Paediatric Vaccinology. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Funding. SMM gratefully acknowledges the Canadian Institutes of Health Research OV4 – 170643, COVID-19 Rapid Research; and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. TNV acknowledges the support of the São Paulo Research Foundation, grant #2018/24811-1.

5 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

References

1. Lau H, Khosrawipour V, Kocbach P, Mikolajczyk A, Schubert J, Bania J, et al. The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in . J Travel Med [Internet]. 2020 May 18 [cited 2020 Aug 24];27(3). Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/27/3/taaa037/5808003 2. Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, Unwin HJT, Mellan TA, Coupland H, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature [Internet]. 2020 Aug [cited 2020 Aug 24];584(7820):257–61. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7 3. Khosrawipour V, Lau H, Khosrawipour T, Kocbach P, Ichii H, Bania J, et al. Failure in initial stage containment of global COVID-19 epicenters. J Med Virol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 24];92(7):863–7. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25883 4. The Lancet. under COVID-19 lockdown. Lancet Lond Engl [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 24];395(10233):1315. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7180023/ 5. COVID-19 Map [Internet]. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. [cited 2020 Aug 5]. Available from: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html 6. Fernandes N. Economic Effects of Coronavirus Outbreak (COVID-19) on the World Economy [Internet]. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2020 Mar [cited 2020 Jul 9]. Report No.: ID 3557504. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3557504 7. Public Health Agency of Canada. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Outbreak update [Internet]. aem. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public- health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html#a1 8. COVID-19 Immunity Task Force. New study offers first glimpse into how widespread COVID-19 antibodies are in Canada’s adult population [Internet]. COVID-19 Immunity Task Force. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.covid19immunitytaskforce.ca/new-study-offers-first-glimpse-into-how- widespread-covid-19-antibodies-are-in--adult-population/ 9. World Health Organization. WHO Target Product Profiles for COVID-19 Vaccines [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jun 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/who-documents-detail- redirect/who-target-product-profiles-for-covid-19-vaccines 10. Pfizer. Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Vaccine Candidate Against COVID-19 Achieved Success in First Interim Analysis from Phase 3 Study | Pfizer [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release- detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against 11. Moderna. Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Meets its Primary Efficacy Endpoint in the First Interim Analysis of the Phase 3 COVE Study | Moderna, Inc. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 19]. Available from: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news- release-details/modernas-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-meets-its-primary-efficacy/ 12. Health Canada. Health Canada authorizes first COVID-19 vaccine [Internet]. gcnws. 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/news/2020/12/health-canada-authorizes-first-covid-19-vaccine0.html 13. CBC News, December 1 2020 8:20 PM ET | Last Updated: Janssen seeks Health Canada approval for its COVID-19 vaccine | CBC News [Internet]. CBC. 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/johnson-johnson-health-canada-approval- 1.5823173 14. World Health Organization. WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on

6 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Immunization Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines: Prioritized Infectious Disease and Economic Modelling Questions [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. Available from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/556deb8ee4b08a534b8360e7/t/5f2b412e6c92b204d f833836/1596670255207/SAGE+WG+COVID- 19+Vaccines_Modelling_Questions_31July2020.pdf 15. Shoukat A, Wells CR, Langley JM, Singer BH, Galvani AP, Moghadas SM. Projecting demand for critical care beds during COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada. Can Med Assoc J [Internet]. 2020 May 11 [cited 2020 Jun 10];192(19):E489–96. Available from: http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200457 16. Public Health Agency of Canada. Vaccine uptake in Canadian Adults 2019 [Internet]. aem. 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 12]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public- health/services/publications/healthy-living/2018-2019-influenza-flu-vaccine-coverage- survey-results.html 17. Toronto Public Health. 2009-2010 pH1N1 Influenza Pandemic Summary Report [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-30493.pdf 18. SC. Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501 19. Government Of Canada SC. Proportion of adults (age 18 years and older) with at least one underlying health condition, by age group and sex [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200703/cg-a001-eng.htm 20. Public Health Ontario. COVID-19 and Severe Outcomes in Ontario [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/- /media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-severe-outcomes-ontario-epi-summary.pdf?la=en 21. Mossong J, Hens N, Jit M, Beutels P, Auranen K, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases. Riley S, editor. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2008 Mar 25 [cited 2020 May 22];5(3):e74. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074 22. Qin J, You C, Lin Q, Hu T, Yu S, Zhou X-H. Estimation of incubation period distribution of COVID-19 using disease onset forward time: A novel cross-sectional and forward follow-up study. Sci Adv [Internet]. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2020 Aug 18];6(33):eabc1202. Available from: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/33/eabc1202 23. He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, Deng X, Wang J, Hao X, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nat Med [Internet]. 2020 May [cited 2020 Jun 10];26(5):672–5. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 24. Li R, Pei S, Chen B, Song Y, Zhang T, Yang W, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Science [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2020 Jun 10];368(6490):489–93. Available from: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/489 25. Gatto M, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Miccoli S, Carraro L, Casagrandi R, et al. Spread and dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic in : Effects of emergency containment measures. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020 May 12 [cited 2020 Jun 10];117(19):10484–91. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004978117 26. Ferretti L, Wymant C, Kendall M, Zhao L, Nurtay A, Abeler-Dörner L, et al. Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing. Science [Internet]. 2020 Mar 31 [cited 2020 Apr 16];eabb6936. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abb6936 27. Moghadas SM, Fitzpatrick MC, Sah P, Pandey A, Shoukat A, Singer BH, et al. The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020 Jul 6 [cited 2020 Jul 9]; Available from:

7 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/02/2008373117 28. CMMID COVID-19 working group, Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, Klepac P, et al. Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK. BMC Med [Internet]. 2020 Dec [cited 2020 Aug 9];18(1):124. Available from: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020- 01597-8 29. Moghadas SM, Shoukat A, Fitzpatrick MC, Wells CR, Sah P, Pandey A, et al. Projecting hospital utilization during the COVID-19 outbreaks in the . Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020 Apr 21 [cited 2020 Jun 10];117(16):9122–6. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9122 30. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2020 Jun 10];8(5):475–81. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30079-5/abstract 31. Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. The Novel Coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, is Highly Contagious and More Infectious Than Initially Estimated. medRxiv [Internet]. 2020 Feb 11 [cited 2020 Jun 10];2020.02.07.20021154. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v1 32. Public Health Agency of Canada. Vaccine annex: Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector [Internet]. aem. 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/flu- influenza/canadian-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-planning-guidance-health- sector/vaccine-annex.html#a3.5.5 33. SIMCOE MUSKOKA DISTRICT. MASS IMMUNIZATION PLAN [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.simcoemuskokahealth.org/docs/default-source/topic- infectiousdisease/appendix_a-11-2_mass_immunization_plan 34. Bourgeois N, Franke C, O’Connor SA, Shaw H, Hum S, Dunn S. Preparing for an influenza pandemic: model of an immunization clinic in an urban family practice. Can Fam Physician Med Fam Can. 2011 Oct;57(10):e367-372. 35. Moran K, Maaten S, Guttmann A, Northrup D, Kwong JC. Influenza vaccination rates in Ontario children: implications for universal childhood vaccination policy. Vaccine. 2009 Apr 14;27(17):2350–5. 36. Weiland N, Zimmer C. Pfizer’s Vaccine Offers Strong Protection After First Dose. The New York Times [Internet]. 2020 Dec 8 [cited 2020 Dec 9]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.html 37. Andrew MK, Shinde V, Ye L, Hatchette T, Haguinet F, Dos Santos G, et al. The Importance of Frailty in the Assessment of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza-Related Hospitalization in Elderly People. J Infect Dis. 2017 15;216(4):405–14. 38. Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2020 Mar 26 [cited 2020 Jun 10];382(13):1199–207. Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 39. Wu JT, Leung K, Leung GM. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. The Lancet [Internet]. 2020 Feb [cited 2020 Jun 10];395(10225):689–97. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673620302609 40. Public Health Ontario. Trends of COVID-19 Incidence in Ontario [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid- 19-epi-trends-incidence-ontario.pdf?la=en 41. Mizumoto K, Kagaya K, Zarebski A, Chowell G. Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of

8 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. Eurosurveillance [Internet]. 2020 Mar 12 [cited 2020 Jun 19];25(10). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078829/ 42. Nishiura H, Kobayashi T, Miyama T, Suzuki A, Jung S-M, Hayashi K, et al. Estimation of the asymptomatic ratio of novel coronavirus infections (COVID-19). Int J Infect Dis IJID Off Publ Int Soc Infect Dis. 2020;94:154–5. 43. Buitrago-Garcia D, Egli-Gany D, Counotte MJ, Hossmann S, Imeri H, Ipekci AM, et al. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Med [Internet]. 2020 Sep 22 [cited 2020 Dec 9];17(9):e1003346. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346 44. Mitra AR, Fergusson NA, Lloyd-Smith E, Wormsbecker A, Foster D, Karpov A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units in , Canada: a case series. CMAJ [Internet]. 2020 Jun 29 [cited 2020 Dec 7];192(26):E694–701. Available from: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/26/E694 45. Public Health Agency of Canada. COVID-19 in Canada [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac- aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/en-surv-covid19- weekly-epi-update-20200807.pdf

9 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Table 1. Description of model parameters and their estimates.

Description 0–4 5–19 20–49 50–64 ≥65 Source

Transmission probability per Calibrated to contact during presymptomatic 0.0401 R = 1.2 (40) stage 0 LogNormal(shape: 1.434, scale: Incubation period (days) (18) 0.661) Derived from Asymptomatic period (days) Gamma(shape: 5, scale: 1) (24,25) Gamma(shape: 1.058, scale: Presymptomatic period (days) Derived from (23) 2.174) Infectious period after the onset of Gamma(shape: 2.768, scale: Derived from (24) symptoms (days) 1.1563) Proportion of infections that are 0.3 0.377 0.328 0.328 0.188 (41–43) asymptomatic

Proportion of symptomatic cases 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.60 0.20 (15,29) that exhibit mild symptoms

Proportion of cases hospitalized with one or more comorbid 23.5% condition (20) Non-ICU 73.9%

ICU 26.1%

Proportion of cases hospitalized 8.9% without any comorbid condition

Non-ICU 80.3% (20)

ICU 19.7%

Derived from Length of non-ICU stay Gamma(shape: 5.3, scale: 2.1) (30,31,44,45) Derived from Length of ICU stay Gamma(shape: 4.5, scale: 2.75) (30,31,44,45)

10 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Figure 1. Projected incidence of infection in vaccination scenarios, compared to no vaccination, with a vaccine roll-out of 30 vaccine doses per 10,000 population per day. The second dose of vaccine was offered 21 (A) and 28 (B) days after the first dose. Vaccine efficacy against infection was assumed to be 50% lower than (orange) or the same as (blue) vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 disease.

11 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Figure 2. Projected relative reduction of attack rate, hospitalizations, and deaths in vaccination scenarios with a vaccine roll-out of 30 vaccine doses per 10,000 population per day. The second dose of vaccine was offered 21 (A) and 28 (B) days after the first dose. Vaccine efficacy against infection was assumed to be 50% lower than (orange) or the same as (blue) vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 disease. Boxplots represent the mean and range of reduction in attack rate, hospitalizations, and deaths attributable to vaccination. Circles indicate the median of the simulated data, and lines are the extended range from the minimum (25th percentile – 1.5 IQR) to maximum (75th percentile + 1.5 IQR).

12 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.20246827; this version posted December 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .

Figure 3. Distribution of the mean cumulative number of hospital bed-days per 10,000 population during the outbreak in vaccination scenarios with a vaccine roll-out of 30 vaccine doses per 10,000 population per day, compared to no vaccination. Boxes indicate interquartile range (IQR), and horizontal lines are the extended range from minimum (25th percentile – 1.5 IQR) to maximum (75th percentile + 1.5 IQR).

13