3 ms·

> 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 prej

> 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against spread was short-lived, no matter which vaccine, so keeping up this narrative that's based on a flawed and outdated premise is either disingenuous or ignorant.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.
  - altacc 4y ago
    Most of that article seems to be talking about an omicron wave, not delta. You were selective in your quote as that article states "we found higher levels of protection among those who received two doses of BNT162b2 compared with those who received two doses of CoronaVac", which supports my claim, given that 2 doses was the initial recommended schedule. Regardless, unless they are large and well conducted systemic reviews, single articles and studies are not enough to represent reality or for either of us to derive conclusions. Good science is slow, much slower than needed for policy decisions.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  They weren't developed for alpha or delta but for the original variant. Alpha was only detected weeks before the vaccines got approved, delta wasn't even around yet. The first updated vaccine that got approved was for omicron.

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.
- altacc 4y ago
  Most of that article seems to be talking about an omicron wave, not delta. You were selective in your quote as that article states "we found higher levels of protection among those who received two doses of BNT162b2 compared with those who received two doses of CoronaVac", which supports my claim, given that 2 doses was the initial recommended schedule. Regardless, unless they are large and well conducted systemic reviews, single articles and studies are not enough to represent reality or for either of us to derive conclusions. Good science is slow, much slower than needed for policy decisions.
CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
They weren't developed for alpha or delta but for the original variant. Alpha was only detected weeks before the vaccines got approved, delta wasn't even around yet. The first updated vaccine that got approved was for omicron.