Vaccination is a key strategy to prevent the pandemic caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to investigate the willingness of Chinese adults to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and further explore the factors that may affect their willingness. We used a self-design anonymous questionnaire to conduct an online survey via the Sojump. A total of 1009 valid questionnaires were analyzed. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 74. Among them, 609 (60.4%, 95%CI: 57.4–63.4%) were willing to receive the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Logistic regression analysis results showed that the age of 30–49 (OR = 2.042, 95%CI: 1.098–3.799), universities and colleges education (OR = 1.873, 95% CI = 1.016–3.451), master degree or above education (OR = 1.885, 95%CI = 1.367–2.599), previous influenza vaccination history (OR = 2.176, 95%CI: 1.474–3.211), trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine (OR = 6.419, 95%CI: 3.717–11.086), and close attention to the latest news of the vaccine (OR = 1.601, 95%CI: 1.046–2.449) were facilitative factors that affected their willingness to be vaccinated. More than half of the adults in China would be willing to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Middle-aged people with higher education, those who had been vaccinated against influenza, and those who believed that COVID-19 vaccine was effective and paid close attention to it were more willing to be vaccinated. Our findings can provide reference for the implementation of vaccination and the prevention of COVID-19 in China. More studies are needed after the vaccine is launched.

The analysis of the effectiveness of booster shots compared with primary vaccination is extremely vital. This paper aimed to summarize the results of all available evidence studies on the effectiveness of booster vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Articles published up to 21 June 2022 were systematically searched through PubMed and EMBASE databases. The searched studies were independently assessed for quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Seven studies (nine datasets) met the criteria and were included in this study. The pooled results demonstrated a 71% (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.17–0.48) reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among subjects who received a booster shot compared with those who did not receive a booster shot of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine. In addition, this analysis emphasized that during the period when the Delta variant was predominant, subjects who received the booster shot showed an 82% (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13–0.25) reduction in infection rates. Moreover, during the period of dominance of the Omicron variant, subjects who received the booster vaccination displayed a 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.35–0.81) reduction in infection rates. This finding confirmed that booster vaccination against the Omicron variant is significantly less effective than that against the Delta variant. In pandemic periods, correlations between the dominant variant and the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine booster should be considered when making vaccine booster plans.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing the case fatality rate (CFR) becomes an urgent goal. Objective: This study explored the effect of vaccination and variants on COVID-19 fatality and provide a basis for the adjustment of control measures. Methods: This study collected epidemiological information on COVID-19 from January to October 2021. By setting different lag times, we calculated the adjusted CFR. The Spearman correlation coefficient and beta regression were used to explore factors that may affect COVID-19 fatality. Results: Every 1% increase in the percentage of full vaccinations may reduce the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.66%. Increasing the restrictions on internal movement from level 0 to 1, restrictions on international travel controls from level 2 to 3, and stay-at-home restrictions from level 0 to 2 were associated with an average reduction in 3 weeks lagging CFR of 0.20%, 0.39%, and 0.36%, respectively. Increasing strictness in canceling public events from level 0 to 1 and 2 may reduce the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.49% and 0.37, respectively. Increasing the severity of school and workplace closures from level 1 or level 0 to 3 may increase the 3 weeks lagging CFR of 0.39% and 0.83, respectively. Every 1-point increase in the Global Health Security (GHS) index score may increase the 3 weeks lagging CFR by 0.12%. Conclusion: A higher percentage of full vaccinations, higher levels of internal movement restrictions, international travel control restrictions, cancelations of public events, and stay-at-home restrictions are factors that may reduce the adjusted CFR.

Combining bioinformatics and in vitro cytology assays, a predictive method was established to quickly evaluate the protective effect of immunity acquired through SARS-CoV-2 infection against variants. Bioinformatics software was first used to predict the changes in the affinity of variant antigens to the CV30 monoclonal antibody by integrating bioinformatics and cytology assays. Then, the ability of the antibody to neutralize the variant antigen was further verified, and the ability of the CV30 to neutralize the new variant strain was predicted through pseudovirus neutralization experiments. The current study has demonstrated that when the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) predicts |ΔBFE| ≤ 3.0003, it suggests that the CV30 monoclonal antibody exhibits some affinity toward the variant strain and can potentially neutralize it. However, if |ΔBFE| ≥ 4.1539, the CV30 monoclonal antibody does not display any affinity for the variant strain and cannot neutralize it. In contrast, if 3.0003 < |ΔBFE| < 4.1539, it is necessary to conduct a series of neutralization tests promptly with the CV30 monoclonal antibody and the variant pseudovirus to obtain results and supplement the existing method, which is faster than the typical procedures. This approach allows for a rapid assessment of the protective efficacy of natural immunity gained through SARS-CoV-2 infection against variants.

This study aims to analyze the serum neutralization capacity against Delta and Omicron variants in three clusters of individuals, including those who had recovered from COVID-19 and those who had received two and three doses of inactivated vaccine. Pseudovirus neutralization tests were performed on serum samples. The neutralizing titers between different groups were compared using the Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test. Among the two-dose vaccinees, the neutralization titers of the Omicron variant were reduced by approximately 3.1-fold compared to the wild-type virus (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, among the three-dose vaccinees, the neutralization titers for Delta and Omicron variants were 3.5-fold (p < 0.05) and 5.0-fold (p < 0.05) lower, respectively, as compared to the wild-type virus. In addition, among the recovering patients, the neutralization titers for Delta and Omicron variants were 3.9-fold (p < 0.05) and 29.1-fold (p < 0.05) lower, respectively, as compared to the wild-type virus. Overall, only 12.0% (11/92) of participants showed neutralizing titers against Omicron above the detection limit. The ability to neutralize wild-type pseudovirus was significantly boosted in three-dose vaccinees as compared to two-dose vaccinees. Sera from recovered patients showed greater neutralizing titers for the wild-type and Delta pseudoviruses than the two- and three-dose inactivated vaccine groups. The present study revealed a loss of neutralizing activity against the Omicron variant in almost all samples. Moreover, the immunization effect obtained through natural infection is more robust than that from the active immunization method of vaccination.

In April 2022, a COVID-19 outbreak caused by the Omicron variant emerged in Guangzhou. A case–control study was conducted to explore the relationship between vaccination intervals and SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real world. According to the vaccination dose and age information of the cases, a 1:4 matched case–control sample was established, finally including n = 242 for the case group and n = 968 for the control group. The results indicated that among the participants who received three vaccine doses, those with an interval of more than 300 days between the receipt of the first vaccine dose and infection (or the first contact with a confirmed case) were less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 than those with an interval of less than 300 days (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.46–0.99). After age-stratified analysis, among participants aged 18–40 years who received two doses of vaccine, those who received the second dose more than 30 days after the first dose were less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30–0.96). Our findings suggest that we need to extend the interval between the first dose and the second dose and further explore the optimal interval between the first and second and between the second and third doses in order to improve vaccine efficacy.