PGPH-D-21-00899

Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Lo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Habib Hasan Farooqui, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type ‘LaTeX Source File’ and leave your .pdf version as the item type ‘Manuscript’.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only, and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file.  If you are using LaTeX, you do not need to remove embedded figures.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures

3. Please ensure that the Title in your manuscript file and the Title provided in your online submission form are the same.

4. Please update the completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded supporting information but you have not included a list of legends.  Please add a full list of legends for all supporting information files (including figures, table and data files) after the references list. 

6. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article, therefore should be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i) Please include all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

ii). State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

iii). State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv). If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

7. Please include details in the Funding Information in the system just like in the Financial Disclosure Statement.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer 1

Authors have discussed various vaccination distributions policies to have a better effect in COVID control. They analyzed that allocating more than 50% of available doses to individuals who have not received their first dose can significantly increase the number of lives saved and significantly reduce the number of COVID-19 infections relative to a policy that guarantees a second dose within the recommended time frame to all individuals who have already received their first dose.

Reviewer 2

This study on vaccine supply and management is very important study when there has been frequent emergence of variants of Sars-Cov-2 virus due to large proportion of global population still remaining unvaccinated against Covid19. This study generates the evidence for efficiency of vaccination policy. Allocating 50% vaccines for first time users and vaccinating them may significantly reduce the deaths as well spread of Covid19. These results are in concurrence to ongoing discussion and research on partially vaccinating the majority of global population will reduce the emergence of variants.

Authors may give reasons for their assumptions such as why DELPHI model is discretized rather than working with ODE (continuous) model (Page 5), choice of Poisson distribution to model vaccine supply shocks (Page 7), carrying out only 1000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulation (Page 7), shocks lasting 7days or more is assumed to have 50%probability of boosting the terminal supply rate by 5%. Giving reason for all these assumptions will be strengthen the study from the point of view of research and will be helpful for the early researchers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have discussed various vaccination distributions policies to have a better effect in COVID control. They analyzed that allocating more than 50% of available doses to individuals who have not received their first dose can significantly increase the number of lives saved and significantly reduce the number of COVID-19 infections relative to a policy that guarantees a second dose within the recommended time frame to all individuals who have already received their first dose.

This is an useful work, and the questions has been analyzed properly. I recommend for acceptance in its current form.

Reviewer #2: This study on vaccine supply and management is very important study when there has been frequent emergence of variants of Sars-Cov-2 virus due to large proportion of global population still remaining unvaccinated against Covid19. This study generates the evidence for efficiency of vaccination policy. Allocating 50% vaccines for first time users and vaccinating them may significantly reduce the deaths as well spread of Covid19. These results are in concurrence to ongoing discussion and research on partially vaccinating the majority of global population will reduce the emergence of variants.

Authors may give reasons for their assumptions such as why DELPHI model is discretized rather than working with ODE (continuous) model (Page 5), choice of Poisson distribution to model vaccine supply shocks (Page 7), carrying out only 1000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulation (Page 7), shocks lasting 7days or more is assumed to have 50%probability of boosting the terminal supply rate by 5%. Giving reason for all these assumptions will be strengthen the study from the point of view of research and will be helpful for the early researchers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Samit Bhattacharyya

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?

PGPH-D-21-00899R1

Dear Dr Lo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Habib Hasan Farooqui, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):