Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Official: Chinese vaccines' effectiveness low


Recommended Posts

China’s top disease control official says their vaccine effectiveness is low. Chinese vaccines “don’t have very high protection rates,” said the director of the China Centers for Disease Control, Gao Fu. Vaccines made by Sinovac, a private company, and Sinopharm, a state-owned firm, have made up the majority of Chinese vaccines distributed to several dozen countries including Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia, Hungary, Brazil and Turkey.

https://apnews.com/article/beijing-immunizations-chengdu-coronavirus-pandemic-china-675bcb6b5710c7329823148ffbff6ef9

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not trash. 50% IS better than nothing by a long shot. It's not like I was offered a choice of vaccine types. For now, I am happy to have been offered something. And keep in mind this was not an

Try and keep up Andy. Some people just don't feel the need to explain themselves more than once. Considering that you posted in the thread in which her comment was made, the onus is on you for not rem

Lakeside , it may not be acceptable up north but reallly who cares we are not up north and the vaccine  you went to take up north is putting more at risk to the South African variant and who knows wha

Posted Images

The info is a little confusing.. I read somewhere else that Brazil said that after the second vaccine it goes up to 83%  but in general I have read the same thing as ths article says. I guess it is better than nothng but nothng to feel very secure with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bmh said:

The info is a little confusing.. I read somewhere else that Brazil said that after the second vaccine it goes up to 83%  but in general I have read the same thing as ths article says. I guess it is better than nothng but nothng to feel very secure with.

You comment " I guess it is better than nothing" realy that observation would not been acceptable NOB but here you are willing to put up with "trash" for such an important issue. I wonder how many others at Lakeside have the same fealings??

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not trash. 50% IS better than nothing by a long shot. It's not like I was offered a choice of vaccine types. For now, I am happy to have been offered something. And keep in mind this was not an established fact when the shots were being given out lakeside. And keep in mind EVERYONE who got a shot here got the Sinovac. 1,000s of people, expats and Mexicans. And happy to get it. And I'll be going back for my second, which all reports say goes WAY up in terms of efficacy.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone refusing to take a shot when offered is adding to the problem.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't.  In the first place this so called "vaccine" is coming from a country with a record of lack of transparency and deceit and indeed caused this whole thing to begin with and made it worse by covering up for months. 

What will we learn next about it?  I can't imagine why anyone would want to take any of these vaccines as the bad news continues to pile up.  The Moderna version is linked to fatal thrombosis.  The latest from Israel is the Pfizer vaccine appears to make one MORE vulnerable to the South African variant of the disease.  The J&J shots have now been suspended in multiple locations.  Variations are popping up all over and no one knows if any of these vaccines will protect against them.

Feel free to volunteer to be guinea pigs Andy et. al.  but please spare the rest of us the judgements about those who let discretion be the better part of valor.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I won't spare you or anyone else from how I personally feel about how you and yours are refusing to be part of the solution. Certainly there is no valor in it. Lucky for you there was no social media when you got your vaccines as a kid.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I won't spare you from how I feel about those who are easily stampeded and so unjustifiably self righteous about same.  Good luck to you and I hope you won't need it.

Let's leave it at that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comments are suspect and based on some self-righteous opinions of yourown, and of course as usual, instead of having a conversation, you are immediately reduced to slinging insults making threats. Guess what? I'm not worried.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

No, I won't spare you or anyone else from how I personally feel about how you and yours are refusing to be part of the solution. Certainly there is no valor in it. Lucky for you there was no social media when you got your vaccines as a kid.

And this isn't self-righteous???

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lakeside , it may not be acceptable up north but reallly who cares we are not up north and the vaccine  you went to take up north is putting more at risk to the South African variant and who knows what else.. We are all gunea pigs in this major experiement of human beings in search of a solution.

Astrazeneca has been stopped in France except for people between 50 and 65.. My nephew whois 33 and got the first vaccine has just been told he will receive pfizer or Moderna as his second vaccine and was assured  it was ok.. Not sure how they can say it is ok to mix vaccjnes when no one seems to know what is really going on.. Everyday we hear new theories and discover more weaknesses to the whole system.

I will take the second vaccine of Sinovac when they come... and then will continue social distancing and wearing a mask.. and then we will see what happens.. I believe that at this point we are all guinea pigs including the Pfizer and Moderna receivers.. so Inch Allah

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "50.38%" Efficacy report from Brazil is not valid. ... The Brazilian 'study' of Sinovac was so small that there were just 88 total vaccinated patients who were counted in the %Efficacy calculation and just 175 total unvaccinated (Control Group) patients with COVID.

When a study has just 88 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients), that is pitifully small, and the conclusions are not valid ... meaning the Brazilians supposed "50.38%"  Sinovac efficacy should be ignored as too small a study to be meaningful.

In contrast, the bigger 10,000 patient Turkish study showed Sinovac 83.5% efficacy, and Sinovac was 100% effective in stopping severe illness & hospitalization. ... and there were no significant side effects.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P

Notice that 83.5% Sinovac efficacy is smaller than Pfizer or Moderna,  but it is 10% larger than Oxford AstraZenica, and 30% larger than JnJ.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take Zinc and Vitamin D. Some are saying this is not a virus pandemic but a Vitamin D deficiency. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tingting said:

And this isn't self-righteous???

Nope, not at all. It was a simple response to an insulting comment. Some people think anyone who doesn't agree with them has a problem. You apparently fit into that mold.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyPanda said:

Your comments are suspect and based on some self-righteous opinions of yourown, and of course as usual, instead of having a conversation, you are immediately reduced to slinging insults making threats. Guess what? I'm not worried.

 

2 hours ago, Tingting said:

And this isn't self-righteous???

 

2 minutes ago, AndyPanda said:

Nope.

Of course it is. More of your defense mechanism psychological projection. Pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, tomgates said:

Take Zinc and Vitamin D. Some are saying this is not a virus pandemic but a Vitamin D deficiency. 

There are $%&/()s out there. Beware.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a stretch. Phew. I can't compete with you. Oh, dear. I'm shattered. Run for the hills, everyone.

Or step back and take a look at why you feel the need to inject such vitriol into a conversation that doesn't affect you. That is trolling behaviour. You are well known for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AndyPanda said:

Wow, that's a stretch. Phew. I can't compete with you. Oh, dear. I'm shattered. Run for the hills, everyone.

Or step back and take a look at why you feel the need to inject such vitriol into a conversation that doesn't affect you. That is trolling behaviour. You are well known for it.

More of your psycological projection troll. Your classic response when confronted. Get real!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyPanda said:

No, I won't spare you or anyone else from how I personally feel about how you and yours are refusing to be part of the solution. Certainly there is no valor in it. Lucky for you there was no social media when you got your vaccines as a 

Wow, just wow. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get back to the topic.

2 hours ago, snowyco said:

The "50.38%" Efficacy report from Brazil is not valid. ... The Brazilian 'study' of Sinovac was so small that there were just 88 total vaccinated patients who were counted in the %Efficacy calculation and just 175 total unvaccinated (Control Group) patients with COVID.

When a study has just 88 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients), that is pitifully small, and the conclusions are not valid ... meaning the Brazilians supposed "50.38%"  Sinovac efficacy should be ignored as too small a study to be meaningful.

In contrast, the bigger 10,000 patient Turkish study showed Sinovac 83.5% efficacy, and Sinovac was 100% effective in stopping severe illness & hospitalization. ... and there were no significant side effects.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P

Notice that 83.5% Sinovac efficacy is smaller than Pfizer or Moderna,  but it is 10% larger than Oxford AstraZenica, and 30% larger than JnJ.
 

Go read the NYT or AP articles.  The 50% was quoted by a Chinese medical official who should know.  Yes study one and two covered 600 people and I can't find the raw data results for anything else Brazil or Indonesia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tomgates said:

 Some are saying this is not a virus pandemic but a Vitamin D deficiency. 

"Some"??? People say all kinds of false and ridiculous things.

You don't end up in the hospital on a respirator or dead because you have a vitamin D deficiency. 

Are you under the impression that no one in sunny warm climates, who get plenty of vitamin D from sun exposure, contracts Covid?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lcscats said:

Get back to the topic.

Go read the NYT or AP articles.  The 50% was quoted by a Chinese medical official who should know.  Yes study one and two covered 600 people and I can't find the raw data results for anything else Brazil or Indonesia.


The NY Times and AP are not scientific journals.  The "50%" was not quoted from a Chinese Medican official, the "50%" value comes from a very small unreliable Brazilian study.   Sadly, the NY Times & AP are unable to read & interpret scientific studies, unable to tell the difference between a good valid study versus a poor small study.

The bigger 10,000 patient Turkish study showed Sinovac 83.5% efficacy, and Sinovac was 100% effective in stopping severe illness & hospitalization. ... and there were no significant side effects.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P

In contrast, the small Brazilian study's  "50.38%" Efficacy reported by NY Times & LA is not valid. ... The Brazilian 'study' of Sinovac was so small that there were just 88 total vaccinated patients who were counted in the %Efficacy calculation and just 175 total unvaccinated (Control Group) patients with COVID, used to calculate that "50%" value that the NY Times & AP keep repeating.  

Does anyone really trust a study that has just 88 patients in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients)?

Sadly even the NY Times & AP don't actually read the primary source material of their news reports, they just repeat things they read from other sources on science & medical issues.  The NY Times & AP editors dropped the ball, badly on this one.


For comparison:
Notice that 83.5% Sinovac efficacy is 10% smaller than Pfizer or Moderna - which troubles the 1 regional Chinese official complaining**,  but it is 10% larger than Oxford AstraZenica, and 30% larger than JnJ.


**When we read the whole press release by the 1 regional Chinese official, we find he is complaining that China is not allowing the highest efficiency m-RNA vaccines, and he wants to combine those highest-efficiency vaccines with the Chinese vaccines in mixing different jabs of different vaccines.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...