Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[lgnxz]

You cited the article for your argument, and when proven wrong then make opposite claims based off of Twitter? LOLOL Like I said, damn godawful reading comprehension.

Also, your Twitter says that exhibiting symptoms is cause for immediate testing. Where does it say that those who fail to exhibit symptoms are automatically assumed negative and not tested even at the end? Cite it, because it's a long thread and I'm not going to comb through it, especially since the medical director in the article says that asymptomatic cases were counted.

But hey, even asymptomatic cases were not counted, that's still wayyy better than what the US does. Take all the guys who do have COVID symptoms and refuse to test them, call them negative, say you got 95% LOLOL The things that the US will do out of desperation to compete with China...

If it is the requirement from the chinese government, can we compare it to the sinopharm's vaccine with the 79% efficacy that has been approved earlier for domestic use then? Assuming that their methodologies are the same, how would you explain the discrepancies?

Why would sinovac even bother to put these data as well if none of the other vaccine companies use such a strict categorization to measure the efficacy? This just makes you look bad, and you know that they (western media) would do everything they can to make it looks bad by highlighting the barely above 50% number, while the context is buried in their paragraphs as a mere footnote. Not to mention that this thing doesn't come as cheap as other vaccine like the one from astrazeneca. Idk, I've been highlighting a bunch of weird decisions taken by sinovac especially in this thread, if I can choose between the two I might just choose sinopharm's vaccine to be honest..

 

[taxiya]

You cited the article for your argument, and when proven wrong then make opposite claims based off of Twitter? LOLOL Like I said, damn godawful reading comprehension.

Also, your Twitter says that exhibiting symptoms is cause for immediate testing. Where does it say that those who fail to exhibit symptoms are automatically assumed negative and not tested even at the end? Cite it, because it's a long thread and I'm not going to comb through it, especially since the medical director in the article says that asymptomatic cases were counted.

But hey, even asymptomatic cases were not counted, that's still wayyy better than what the US does. Take all the guys who do have COVID symptoms and refuse to test them, call them negative, say you got 95% LOLOL The things that the US will do out of desperation to compete with China...

I only realized that you are talking with a person of 豆腐脑橡皮人 (person of jelly brain and rubber body) after I clicked "show ignored content".

 

[taxiya]

If it is the requirement from the chinese government, can we compare it to the sinopharm's vaccine with the 79% efficacy that has been approved earlier for domestic use then? Assuming that their methodologies are the same, how would you explain the discrepancies?

Why would sinovac even bother to put these data as well if none of the other vaccine companies use such a strict categorization to measure the efficacy? This just makes you look bad, and you know that they (western media) would do everything they can to make it looks bad by highlighting the barely above 50% number, while the context is buried in their paragraphs as a mere footnote. Not to mention that this thing doesn't come as cheap as other vaccine like the one from astrazeneca. Idk, I've been highlighting a bunch of weird decisions taken by sinovac especially in this thread, if I can choose between the two I might just choose sinopharm's vaccine to be honest..

I guess the reports put forward to the regulators are all similarly detailed with the strict categorization (including US). The mRNAs may still have a higher efficiency than traditional ones, but the real figures in the authorization application reports certainly do not look as rosy as the western media reported.

The bottom line is that China is not playing a propaganda game and race, while the west does, the companies, the FDA and the medias, they just don't tell the darker side of their story.

The fundamental thought behind China's behavior is similar to China not joining any military race with the US. In case of the vaccine it is actually a smart choice in the long run, let whichever doubting and biased country to suffer for their stupidity than forcefully compete for their acceptance. Very often lesson has to be learnt in the hard way or the only way, and only after that the stupids will truly change their mind, no words can help.

 

[manqiangrexue]

If it is the requirement from the chinese government, can we compare it to the sinopharm's vaccine with the 79% efficacy that has been approved earlier for domestic use then? Assuming that their methodologies are the same, how would you explain the discrepancies?

Why would sinovac even bother to put these data as well if none of the other vaccine companies use such a strict categorization to measure the efficacy? This just makes you look bad, and you know that they (western media) would do everything they can to make it looks bad by highlighting the barely above 50% number, while the context is buried in their paragraphs as a mere footnote. Not to mention that this thing doesn't come as cheap as other vaccine like the one from astrazeneca. Idk, I've been highlighting a bunch of weird decisions taken by sinovac especially in this thread, if I can choose between the two I might just choose sinopharm's vaccine to be honest..

The biggest difference in vaccine design philosophy between China and the US is the focus. America is not the center of China's effort. China's vaccines are made to defend China and defeat the virus, while China is the center of America's vaccine effort. America's vaccines are a propaganda effort first and foremost, and whatever it can actually do against COVID is secondary. Just because America has dropped its standards so low that they can no longer be considered science in order to build its propaganda tool does not mean that China will chase that strategy as well. For China, it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. Chinese vaccines are made with integrity and honesty, with proper scientific testing standards regardless of what corners others may cut. The actual health experts in each country making the decisions know how to read data and analyze methods. They do not go, "95%>79%>50%. Done, lunch time."

 

[localizer]

There's still quite a few unknowns about the mRNA vaccines.

One thing I'm suspicious of is how well they can develop a new vaccine against new strains/variants.

Inactivated vaccines usually have some level of protection. If you find a new virus, you just mass produce it, kill it, and use it with some adjuvant as the vaccine.

The mRNA vaccines are equivalent to subunit vaccines, but superior in the sense that it expresses proteins in vivo to generate more natural proteins. But subunit vaccines must each be tested more extensively as 1 mutation can totally change the nature of the antigen. Where you start and end the protein, or which protein you choose, make all the difference.

 

[vesicles]

There's still quite a few unknowns about the mRNA vaccines.

One thing I'm suspicious of is how well they can develop a new vaccine against new strains/variants.

Inactivated vaccines usually have some level of protection. If you find a new virus, you just mass produce it, kill it, and use it with some adjuvant as the vaccine.

The mRNA vaccines are equivalent to subunit vaccines, but superior in the sense that it expresses proteins in vivo to generate more natural proteins. But subunit vaccines must each be tested more extensively as 1 mutation can totally change the nature of the antigen. Where you start and end the protein, or which protein you choose, make all the difference.

They usually choose the most stable and the least mutatable parts in developing their vaccines when using subunits or mRNAs. Vaccines in general are susceptible to potential mutations of viruses. This is why we have to keep churning out new flu vaccines even when we use traditional de-activated viruses.

 

[KYli]

If it is the requirement from the chinese government, can we compare it to the sinopharm's vaccine with the 79% efficacy that has been approved earlier for domestic use then? Assuming that their methodologies are the same, how would you explain the discrepancies?

Why would sinovac even bother to put these data as well if none of the other vaccine companies use such a strict categorization to measure the efficacy? This just makes you look bad, and you know that they (western media) would do everything they can to make it looks bad by highlighting the barely above 50% number, while the context is buried in their paragraphs as a mere footnote. Not to mention that this thing doesn't come as cheap as other vaccine like the one from astrazeneca. Idk, I've been highlighting a bunch of weird decisions taken by sinovac especially in this thread, if I can choose between the two I might just choose sinopharm's vaccine to be honest..

This report is from Brazil and under pressure from the Brazil government. It has nothing to do with the Chinese government or Sinovac. Normally, the butantan institute doesn't need to release this detail but was forced to do so.

Sinovac has not obtained the approval from the Chinese government so the Chinese government hasn't released the consolidated and standardized efficacy rate of Sinovac vaccine. I think you need to understand the Chinese government wants the data to include asymptomatic cases before approving the vaccine. Sinovac probably shouldn't have cooperated with the Brazil in the first place as Brazil federal government is very hostile.

However, it might look bad for China for now but if the Western media continued to play politics then it would come back to bite them. Remember how they painted China as a dystopia and what they said about face masks. Same thing would happen for the vaccines when people find out that the real efficacy rate is much lower than they claimed to be.

 

[lgnxz]

Sinovac has not obtained the approval from the Chinese government so the Chinese government hasn't released the consolidated and standardized efficacy rate of Sinovac vaccine. I think you need to understand the Chinese government wants the data to include asymptomatic cases before approving the vaccine.

So you think the approved sinopharm's vaccine with 79% efficacy already includes the asymptomatic cases? If so, again what do you think about the difference between the two? I also don't think that this time sinovac is pressured to release this since the brazilian government already sign a deal with them to get 100 million doses. So it's not like they refuse to buy it unless this announcement are made.

The categorization is just so extreme, like earlier someone here mentioned how pfizer doesn't even count some subjects that has covid symptoms since they don't do the PCR tests to confirm it for some fuckin reason, let alone testing everyone to check for the asymptomatic cases. The resulting data from different countries are also so all over the place (65% indonesia, 50-78% brazil, 91% turkey), the whole thing is just so 'confusing', for a lack of better phrase. Why do they even bother to make this seemingly unnecessary announcement that can most likely harm their product's rep?

The bottom line is that China is not playing a propaganda game and race, while the west does, the companies, the FDA and the medias, they just don't tell the darker side of their story.

The fundamental thought behind China's behavior is similar to China not joining any military race with the US. In case of the vaccine it is actually a smart choice in the long run, let whichever doubting and biased country to suffer for their stupidity than forcefully compete for their acceptance. Very often lesson has to be learnt in the hard way or the only way, and only after that the stupids will truly change their mind, no words can help.

The biggest difference in vaccine design philosophy between China and the US is the focus. America is not the center of China's effort. China's vaccines are made to defend China and defeat the virus, while China is the center of America's vaccine effort. America's vaccines are a propaganda effort first and foremost, and whatever it can actually do against COVID is secondary. Just because America has dropped its standards so low that they can no longer be considered science in order to build its propaganda tool does not mean that China will chase that strategy as well. For China, it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. Chinese vaccines are made with integrity and honesty, with proper scientific testing standards regardless of what corners others may cut. The actual health experts in each country making the decisions know how to read data and analyze methods. They do not go, "95%>79%>50%. Done, lunch time."

I knew that already, which is why I compare it to another domestic vaccine maker sinopharm, a state owned company as bonus too, unlike sinovac. Comparison between vaccines can't just be based on the efficacy rate, yes I agree. Stuffs like storing method and price can also have an effect, though again it's hard to see a merit to ever choose sinovac over sinopharm if both are readily available, given that they are very similar except the efficacy difference.

 

[gadgetcool5]

OK. After reading the Global Times article I am feeling a little better based on the following facts:

- It seems that the study was solely health workers, who are a higher risk group, and vaccine efficacy tends to be lower when trial participants are higher risk groups. The risk level of the CoronaVac Brazil study was several times higher than the risk level of the Pfizer and Moderna studies.

- The study included a couple of very mild symptoms that were not included in the other studies, including headache. This probably reduced the measured efficacy of the vaccine.

- The efficacy might be able to be improved (based on the study) if the second dose is given after three weeks rather than after two.

 

[supercat]

At the end of the day it is what it is. It passed the 50% hurdle. And it's very effective against the need for hospitalization. So by all means use it. But China is way behind on the pharmaceutical sciences.

A lot of the researchers working in Western life science institutions are ethnic Chinese. Overall, China's domestic institutions and R&D programs for life sciences rank #5 in the world, while China ranks #1 in overall, physical sciences, chemistry, and earth and environmental sciences, according to Nature Index. See chart #1.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think it's just a matter of time that China will catch up with the West in life sciences, just like how they caught up with the West in STEM programs.