Quickie
Colonel
It's not that simple. Conflicting studies exist.
See:
(Singapore)
(Hong Kong)
The first study indicates a 50% difference in favor of mRNA after 4 doses (though 3 dose mRNA = 4 dose inactivated virus). The second study indicates a ~10-15% difference in favor of mRNA after 3-4 doses. That difference is larger with less doses, which is also consistent with the study you linked, though that could be because of how recent the dose is, rather than how many there were.
I also don't like the propaganda being pushed by the West regarding how Chinese vaccines are "useless," but there is data suggesting less effectiveness, though the margin might be only ~10-15% judging by the Hong Kong study, which isn't a lot. The Singapore study, however, is more of a problem. With a fast moving and ever changing virus, and new vaccine boosters being pushed out regularly, it's not likely that we'll get enough data to say one way or another until the wave has already passed. This makes it easy for people to push any agenda they want.
In short, I'm cautiously optimistic about inactivated viruses, presuming they update them quickly with new strains. But mRNA technology also shouldn't be dismissed. Having access to both would be ideal, in case one technology does turn out to be better in the long run.
We have gone through this before.
The first study can't be conclusive because of the too small size sample (according to the authors) for the inactivated vaccine and its combinations.
Otherwise, a 3-dose combination (2-dose inactivated, 1 Pfizer booster) is actually better than 3-dose mRNA in Hospitalization and Severe cases.
From the data tabulation in the link:
3-dose combination Against 3-dose mRNA
67 Against 76 for Hospitalization cases.
9 Against 12 for Severe cases
So, does that mean a 3-dose combination (2-dose inactivated, 1 Pfizer booster) is better than 3-dose mRNA?
For the Hong Kong study, I commented on it before.
"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. "
It's important to consider this because Sinovac/Sinopharm is known to be increasingly more popular with the older age groups (in Hong Kong), which is associated with higher case fatality, which would then skew the calculation towards a higher fatality rate for the whole >=60 pool.
Last edited: