Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)
- Thread starter localizer
- Start date
For China's 150 hab/km2 density, does that include sparsely populated areas?
So this article just basically confirms what many here said, three doses of CoronoVac had the relatively the same prevention of mortality as three doses of mRNA. 98% vs 95.5% is not statistical significant and the confidence intervals overlap so from a medical perspective they are considered equal. seems like when a proper case-control study is done, there is no difference in mortality between mRNA and CoronaVac at three doses, which is what really counts.
Also from the article:
In individuals aged 18–50 years, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality remained consistently high after one to three doses of BNT162b2 [one-dose: 89.9% (38.6–98.3), two-doses: 86.6% (71.0–93.8), three-doses: 86.6% (57.9–95.7)], and increased with an increasing number of doses for CoronaVac [one-dose: 37.8% (−70.8–77.4), two-doses: 82.7% (56.5–93.1), three-doses: 93.1% (63.8–98.7)].
So it seems CoronaVav is more effective in those aged 18-50! Further supports my previous comment that as a younger person I would prefer inactivated vaccines. I wouldn’t mind taking the three required doses. Thanks for the article!
Sure neutralization studies can be useful but what we really care about are clinical results.
Quickie
Colonel
The big problem is that the study did not break down the ≥65 years pool.
The study is using data from the Hong Kong population, the same locality as those used in the few other studies posted here previously, including those from yourself, that did break down the >= 60 years pool to a few age groups, which shows that the efficacies of the 2 types of vaccines to be about the same for 3 doses.
I mean those countries have much younger population when compared to the west or east Asia. It only makes sense that when young people get covid they are much less likely to die.
Further more underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure will lead to under reporting of illness and less severe cases will just be shrugged off as the flu.
Quickie
Colonel
It could be those as mentioned could have an effect but still, that doesn't mean it's something to be brushed off as spurious data without further consideration.
Another great study!
This study again confirms what I have mentioned before.
From the study: “BNT162b2 recipients were generally younger and healthier than CoronaVac recipients”.
From table 1 it is clear that those who received the CoronaVac had way more history of heart disease, cerebral vascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure and were on much more medications for their chronic disease than those that took the mRNA! All of those are HUGE risk factors for severe COVID symptoms and death from COVID. So this WOULD explain why there seemed like more people had severe COVID from the inactivated vaccines in the Hong Kong and Singaporean data that you posted earlier! Thanks for producing data that supports my previous comment.
Given the fact that CoronaVac side effect rate was similar to mRNA vaccine but was given to a higher risk population, makes think that if the population were the same, CoronaVac would actually have less side effects than mRNA, again sprouting what I had said about preferring Chinese vaccine. They work better in those aged 18-50 and has similar side effects rate but in a higher risk population!
Last edited:
Comorbidities were addressed in the HK mortality paper I posted:
That observation regarding 18-50 mortality after 3 doses is the only time I've ever seen inactivated vaccines showing superiority over mRNA. It doesn't hold true for any of the other age groups regarding severity or mortality, or for those who received 1-2 doses. It's also not very relevant because deaths or severe cases among 18-50 are exceedingly rare among those who received 3 doses.
In this thread I'm attempting to refute the claim that inactivated vaccines are superior. They have acceptable efficacy against severity and mortality after 3 doses. The study from Singapore suggests after 3 doses inactivated vaccines wane faster and more significantly than mRNA vaccines. So I'd hesitate to say they're on par, only that they are acceptable for surviving a few waves not long after vaccination (for those vulnerable in the first place).
My main point overall is that the rate of older age groups who received 2 doses, let alone 3 doses, is too low in China for the mortality figures currently being released to be credible or representative of the near future.
You are actually misinterpreting the safety study. Variations in comorbidities were specifically controlled for. This is what researchers typically do when the cohorts have such different characteristics to prevent jumping to the exact conclusions you are making.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
Which Singapore study?
Medicine has often been used for political ends i.e. eugenics, lobotomies, etc. Most life science papers cannot be reproduced. So any claims that mRNA is superior, despite the originating country suffering 1 million deaths out of a 300 million population, should be taken with the same grain of salt that is given to any other biomedical research - regard it as up to 85% false.