4 ms·

I'd modify your statement to be "covid might be causing immuno-deficiency in some people". There is some evidence that long covid, affecting about 7.5% of thos

by altacc 4y ago

I'd modify your statement to be "covid might be causing immuno-deficiency in some people". There is some evidence that long covid, affecting about 7.5% of those who get covid, is the result of a suppressed immune system [example refs below]. There's a lot of anecdotal discussion about a possible larger effect and there is ongoing research to try and determine if there has been any effect on this year's northern hemisphere flu numbers from the effects of coronavirus infection, social isolation or vaccinations but there is no conclusion yet. More variants is a concern but seeing how corona has been allowed to run free around the rest of the world it's unfair to single out China here. The rest of the world is busy producing new variants, which are reacting to the local vaccines and becoming better at evading protection. China has different vaccines, so likely to produce variants that avoid those vaccines, which have never been good enough to begin with. Anywhere in the world might produce a variant with better spread than Omnicron and also more severe disease. https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009742 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.21261234v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.21261234v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00491-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

FooBarWidget 4y ago
> which have never been good enough to begin with It's time we retire this media talking point which is based on severe distortion of the data and frankly prejudice. Research shows that 3-dose Sinovac is about just as effective as 3-dose Pfizer with the original Omicron against severe illness and death. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00345-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Neither Pfizer) nor Sinovac are very good against preventing spread. And also, for both, the boosters' main protection only last for a few months, which is why we now live in a "booster subscription reality". Furthermore, the BF.1 and BQ.1 variants dominant in China are mutations that evade existing immunity again meaning that neither Pfizer (even the bivalent one or Sinovac are very good against current variants. Chinese also have had fewer boosts than western countries because there was no need to. Whereas here we recommend people to get boosted every few months, in China many people had their last dose a year ago. This also plays a major factor in immunity that's not related to whether the vaccines themselves work or not. The media narrative of "Chinese vaccines don't work" was based on the worst-case data in some early trials (efficacy depends on context) against the original strain, and the media and the public just kept latching on that idea without looking at other data and without recognizing that Omicron is also defeating Pfizer.
- altacc 4y ago
  The vaccines were primarily developed for the alpha and delta variants, where there was a significant difference in effectiveness between the Sinovac and RNA vaccines.
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    Not so when benchmarked against severe illness and death, and with sufficient doses. See the paper I linked. The numbers are very clear. The "Chinese vaccines don't work" narrative is in part based on an apple-orange comparison. Articles compared Sinovac's efficacy against spread (which, admittedly, is lower than mRNA's) with Pfizer's efficacy against severe illness/death, all against the original variant. Furthermore, the phase where we had any sort of decent protection against spread was short-lived, no matter which vaccine, so keeping up this narrative that's based on a flawed and outdated premise is either disingenuous or ignorant.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      If this is so obvious, and that mRNA vaccines are better at reducing the spread, what is keeping China from importing foreign vaccines or developing their own mRNA version of Sinovac?
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        Ideology.
        FooBarWidget 4y ago
        They have a manufacturing deal for Paxlovid.
      - FooBarWidget 4y ago
        1. They are developing vaccines other than inactivated ones. A domestic mRNA one is in trial. They are also developing inhaled, protein subunit and viral vector vaccines. 2. There was initially not enough capacity to supply mRNA to the entire world. Huge parts of Africa, South-east Asia and India didn't have any vaccines for a long time, or could only get Chinese vaccines. Why would China choose to be at the mercy of western companies? Don't people here talk too about supply chain risk and reducing reliance on China? Why is self-reliance only a good thing when we do it? 3. Inactivated vaccines don't require ultra cold chains. Rural areas of China lag behind in development. The label "developing country" actually means something. 4. Does the US accept Chinese vaccines? They have fewer side effects.

by altacc 4y ago

FooBarWidget 4y ago

> which have never been good enough to begin with It's time we retire this media talking point which is based on severe distortion of the data and frankly prejudice. Research shows that 3-dose Sinovac is about just as effective as 3-dose Pfizer with the original Omicron against severe illness and death. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00345-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Neither Pfizer) nor Sinovac are very good against preventing spread. And also, for both, the boosters' main protection only last for a few months, which is why we now live in a "booster subscription reality". Furthermore, the BF.1 and BQ.1 variants dominant in China are mutations that evade existing immunity again meaning that neither Pfizer (even the bivalent one or Sinovac are very good against current variants. Chinese also have had fewer boosts than western countries because there was no need to. Whereas here we recommend people to get boosted every few months, in China many people had their last dose a year ago. This also plays a major factor in immunity that's not related to whether the vaccines themselves work or not. The media narrative of "Chinese vaccines don't work" was based on the worst-case data in some early trials (efficacy depends on context) against the original strain, and the media and the public just kept latching on that idea without looking at other data and without recognizing that Omicron is also defeating Pfizer.

altacc 4y ago
The vaccines were primarily developed for the alpha and delta variants, where there was a significant difference in effectiveness between the Sinovac and RNA vaccines.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Not so when benchmarked against severe illness and death, and with sufficient doses. See the paper I linked. The numbers are very clear. The "Chinese vaccines don't work" narrative is in part based on an apple-orange comparison. Articles compared Sinovac's efficacy against spread (which, admittedly, is lower than mRNA's) with Pfizer's efficacy against severe illness/death, all against the original variant. Furthermore, the phase where we had any sort of decent protection against spread was short-lived, no matter which vaccine, so keeping up this narrative that's based on a flawed and outdated premise is either disingenuous or ignorant.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    If this is so obvious, and that mRNA vaccines are better at reducing the spread, what is keeping China from importing foreign vaccines or developing their own mRNA version of Sinovac?
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      Ideology.
      - FooBarWidget 4y ago
        They have a manufacturing deal for Paxlovid.
    - FooBarWidget 4y ago
      1. They are developing vaccines other than inactivated ones. A domestic mRNA one is in trial. They are also developing inhaled, protein subunit and viral vector vaccines. 2. There was initially not enough capacity to supply mRNA to the entire world. Huge parts of Africa, South-east Asia and India didn't have any vaccines for a long time, or could only get Chinese vaccines. Why would China choose to be at the mercy of western companies? Don't people here talk too about supply chain risk and reducing reliance on China? Why is self-reliance only a good thing when we do it? 3. Inactivated vaccines don't require ultra cold chains. Rural areas of China lag behind in development. The label "developing country" actually means something. 4. Does the US accept Chinese vaccines? They have fewer side effects.