Scientists Say Mass Vaccination Is Best Response to a Smallpox Attack

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Smallpox was eradicated from humans in 1979. But in light of last fall's terrorist attacks, it has returned to the forefront of public consciousness as a potential bioweapon. Because of the uncertainty surrounding both the chances of an assault involving the virus and the availability of vaccine stockpiles, the response policy to such an attack is continually evolving. Now a report published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that mass vaccination after a smallpox attack would save thousands more lives than the government's current plan of action.

Edward H. Kaplan of Yale University, together with David L. Craft and Lawrence M. Wein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed a computer model to track smallpox cases and deaths that would result from an attack on a large urban center. They tested a number of scenarios and compared two main treatment options. In the first, so-called traced or ring vaccination, people who have had contact with a person showing symptoms of the disease are vaccinated and those sick with the disease are quarantined. In mass vaccination, in contrast, the entire population is vaccinated once victims start exhibiting symptoms. Last month the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) unveiled a response plan that calls for ring vaccination followed by mass vaccination only if the outbreak cannot be contained by the primary measures or if the initial number of cases is sufficiently large.

The modeling results indicate, however, that mass vaccinations would result in fewer deaths and quicker elimination of the disease regardless of the number of initial victims. The scientists tested different scenarios with varying values for parameters such as the number of infections, transmission rates, the fraction of contacted people correctly identified by victims and the resources available to administer vaccines. For a hypothetical city of 10 million inhabitants, the team found that more than 4,000 additional deaths would occur under the current CDC plan than if a mass vaccination was implemented. The authors conclude that "the cost in both deaths and time of delaying the switch to [mass vaccination]--as suggested by interim CDC policy--is very high, particularly in light of the public clamoring for vaccination and the mass panic that would likely ensue in the event of an attack." Considering recent news reports that the federal government plans to vaccinate as many as 500, 000 health care and emergency workers, there is some positive news to be found in the new findings. The researchers also found that vaccinations of a portion of the population prior to an attack reduced the gap between the various strategies and led to fewer overall deaths.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe