Maybe Sinovac should’ve only released data on severe and moderate cases as well.
But then the MSM would cry foul on that
fukem, in the end it’s really the scientists that help governments decide
Johnson and Johnson probably doesn't have 50% efficacy. They talk about 66% effectiveness against "moderate and severe" cases, but not all symptomatic coronavirus. I remember Sinovac tried to pull the same trick.
The actual result:
| "Moderate and severe" cases | Total symptomatic cases (what we define as "efficacy") |
| Sinovac | 78% | 50% |
| Johnson & Johnson | 66% | Not reported (probably below 50%) |
Okay, looks like Johnson & Johnson define "moderate" cases as two or more symptoms, while Sinovac defined "moderate" cases as needing assistance but not hospitalization. So they're not comparable. Please disregard my previous post.
Johnson & Johnson's trial didn't consider coronavirus cases with one symptom, which some other trials did. It seems like there's a lot of fudging and manipulation going on in these trials.
Needing assistance would be at the stage where there would be more symptoms, meaning that may push the 66% even lower for J & J. because it can't include those with two or three symptoms into the calculation of those protected by the vaccine (assuming the vaccine has better protection for those with milder symptoms).
Meanwhile, BBC is reporting on TV news so and so vaccines (from UK and US) having over 90%, Russian vaccine over 90% with the caveat "according to Russian sources" and Chinese vaccine Sinovac at 50.4%, not surprisingly choosing the least efficacy rate out of a range of test results that ranges up to over 91%.
The thing that is so unjust and unfair is why is these media even comparing the vaccines in this way when the efficacy rate of these vaccines are derived from very different criteria and different settings.
