Cited by 238Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

The effect of opinion clustering on disease outbreaks

Open access
Salathé, Marcel, Bonhoeffer, Sebastian·2008·Journal of The Royal Society Interface

Abstract

Many high-income countries currently experience large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles despite the availability of highly effective vaccines. This phenomenon lacks an explanation in countries where vaccination rates are rising on an already high level. Here, we build on the growing evidence that belief systems, rather than access to vaccines, are the primary barrier to vaccination in high-income countries, and show how a simple opinion formation process can lead to clusters of unvaccinated individuals, leading to a dramatic increase in disease outbreak probability. In particular, the effect of clustering on outbreak probabilities is strongest when the vaccination coverage is close to the level required to provide herd immunity under the assumption of random mixing. Our results based on computer simulations suggest that the current estimates of vaccination coverage necessary to avoid outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases might be too low.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsif.2008.0271

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large-scale acceptance with local vaccine rejection can have negative consequences for community (herd) immunity, as clustering of non-vaccinators can disproportionately increase the needed percentage of vaccination coverage to achieve herd immunity in adjacent geographical regions and encourage epidemic spread.

    “While large-scale vaccine rejection threatens herd immunity goals, large-scale acceptance with local vaccine rejection can also have negative consequences for community (herd) immunity, as clustering of non-vaccinators can disproportionately increase the needed percentage of vaccination coverage to achieve herd immunity in adjacent geographical regions and encourage epidemic spread 24 .”

    From Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA (2021) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Results and Discussion (pp. not specified) report that clusters of unvaccinated people can undermine herd immunity, increase outbreak probability, and mean that vaccination-coverage estimates needed to avoid outbreaks are too low. The Discussion also says infection can spread from one susceptible cluster to another. The paper does not specifically find that clustering raises the coverage percentage needed in adjacent geographical regions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Erdős P, Rényi A. On random graphs. I. Publicationes Math. 1959;6:290–297. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salathé, M., & Bonhoeffer, S.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Salathé, Marcel
Venue
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
Published
2008-08-19
Volume
5
Issue
29
Pages
1505-1508
ISSN
  • 1742-5662 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-5689
OpenAlex
W2109953716
Cited by
238
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of The Royal Society Interface (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM28016, R01GM028016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Keywords
opinion clustering, outbreak, measles, vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination coverage, herd immunity, belief systems, opinion formation, high-income countries, outbreak probability
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Culture, Disease Outbreaks, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Public Opinion, Vaccination, Cluster Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review