3 ms·
The vaccines were primarily developed for the alpha and delta variants, where there was a significant difference in effectiveness between the Sinovac and RNA va
by 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 agoNot 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against spread was short-lived, no matter which vaccine, so keeping up this narrative that's based on a flawed and outdated premise is either disingenuous or ignorant.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 agoIf 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 agoIdeology.
- FooBarWidget 4y agoThey have a manufacturing deal for Paxlovid.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago1. 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 agoMost 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.
- FooBarWidget 4y agoI'm being selective? Why would you compare 2-dose efficacy when the point is that 3-dose efficacy is similar? W.r.t. Omicron, the Dutch govt is very clear about the fact 2-dose Pfizer is not enough and that you need boosters, which makes insisting on a 2-dose comparison even stranger. Agreed on more research being needed. But the opposite also holds: concluding that Chinese vaccines don't work, especially when such conclusion is usually used to support the implicit thesis that "our vaccines work great and they're in this mess because they didn't use ours", is also irresponsible.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y agoThey 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.