When is vaccine prioritization worth optimizing?
Abstract
Optimizing vaccine prioritization is often treated as the default policy response when vaccine supply is limited. Yet optimized prioritization carries administrative, ethical and communication costs, motivating an upstream question: whether differences among vaccine allocations can alter epidemic outcomes enough to make optimization epidemiologically necessary. We show that optimization is not always worth pursuing: in some regimes, vaccination markedly reduces epidemic burden, but many feasible allocation rules perform almost equally well, making the necessity of optimization low. We quantify this necessity as the range of epidemic outcomes generated by different allocations under fixed supply and show that it is governed by competition between vaccinating high-contact groups to slow transmission and vaccinating groups that benefit most directly: necessity is low when these protection routes are balanced and high when one dominates. Increasing transmission intensity changes this balance and drives a transition in the optimal allocation from transmission-focused prioritization toward direct protection. Different prevention objectives exhibit distinct transition thresholds, creating regimes in which optimizing one objective substantially compromises another, thereby revealing when the choice of prevention target matters most. This framework reframes vaccine prioritization as a prior decision problem, identifying when optimization is warranted, when simpler rules suffice, and when prevention goals conflict.
Related
- A Gaussian-Process Surrogate for Control Rod Worth with Calibrated Uncertainty: Application to VERA Core Physics Benchmark Problem 4
- One Bit of Collective Information Is Worth N ln 2 Bits of Local Information in a Many-Body Quantum Battery
- Optimizing optimal transport: Role of final distributions in finite-time thermodynamics
- Optimizing twisted partially coherent vortex beams for ground-based laser ablation propulsion in space
- Optimizing x-ray based multimodal imaging: investigating dose dependency and modulation of fluorescence emission from GdF ₃ nanoparticles doped with terbium using spectral photon counting CT
BibTeX
@misc{feng2026when,
title = {{When is vaccine prioritization worth optimizing?}},
author = {Mi Feng and Zhaohua Lin and Changsong Zhou and Liang Tian},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2607.00484},
eprint = {2607.00484},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00484},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - When is vaccine prioritization worth optimizing?
AU - Mi Feng
AU - Zhaohua Lin
AU - Changsong Zhou
AU - Liang Tian
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/16
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2607.00484
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00484
AB - Optimizing vaccine prioritization is often treated as the default policy response when vaccine supply is limited. Yet optimized prioritization carries administrative, ethical and communication costs, motivating an upstream question: whether differences among vaccine allocations can alter epidemic outcomes enough to make optimization epidemiologically necessary. We show that optimization is not always worth pursuing: in some regimes, vaccination markedly reduces epidemic burden, but many feasible allocation rules perform almost equally well, making the necessity of optimization low. We quantify this necessity as the range of epidemic outcomes generated by different allocations under fixed supply and show that it is governed by competition between vaccinating high-contact groups to slow transmission and vaccinating groups that benefit most directly: necessity is low when these protection routes are balanced and high when one dominates. Increasing transmission intensity changes this balance and drives a transition in the optimal allocation from transmission-focused prioritization toward direct protection. Different prevention objectives exhibit distinct transition thresholds, creating regimes in which optimizing one objective substantially compromises another, thereby revealing when the choice of prevention target matters most. This framework reframes vaccine prioritization as a prior decision problem, identifying when optimization is warranted, when simpler rules suffice, and when prevention goals conflict.
ER -