Bloomberg: mRNA much more effective preventing Covid spread

[asiacurious]

Bloomberg has an excellent article up now.  Well worth a read.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-19/some-vaccines-help-nations-exit-the-pandemic-faster-than-others

 

The TL:DR is:

 

• mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer/ BioNTech) appear to prevent the spread of Covid by those who are vaccinated (which helps with achieving herd immunity).
• Adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca) and inactivated virus vaccines (Sinopharm and Sinovac) DO NOT appear to prevent the spread of Covid by those who are vaccinated.  Vaccinated people appear to be mostly protected from severe illness or death, but they can still get sickand importantly, can still spread Covid.

 

From the article:

 

In countries such as Israel, new Covid cases are declining as vaccinations spread, while in other places like the Seychelles -- which has fully inoculated more of its population than any other nation -- infections continue to increase or even reach new highs.

 

SNIP

 

Evidence derived from the expanding global inoculation rollout indicates that the messenger RNA shots developed by Moderna Inc. or Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE are better at stopping people from becoming contagious, helping reduce onward transmission -- an unexpected extra benefit as the first wave of Covid vaccines were intended to stop people from becoming very sick.  Other vaccines, while effective in preventing acute illness or death from Covid, appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree.

 

 

The article also includes this chart:

 

 

 

The article also discusses what has happened in the Seychelles, where even though 65% of the population has been vaccinated (40% with AstraZeneca and 60% with Sinopharm) new weekly infections have dramatically increased.  37% of the new infections are with people who have already had two doses of either AZ or Sinopharm.  However the article notes that that these vaccinated people who have gotten sick have only experienced mild symptoms.

 

This demonstrates that the AZ and Sinopharm/Sinovac types of vaccines do save lives and are probably worth getting it that's all that is available, but they won't have the same level of protection or the same benefit of allowing for herd immunity.

 

Here's a second important quote from the article, which should be kept in mind....

 

“I would be careful about over-interpreting the data,” said Petrovsky at Flinders University, who points out that no head-to-head studies -- where shots are tested against each other -- have been performed to identify the best vaccines. For the mRNA shots, “data on their effects on transmission is very limited.”

 

As I said, the whole article is well worth a read.

 

Here are a couple of mirrors of the article published in other papers (the article is syndicated).  They may not include the full original article or charts, but are useful if you've hit your Bloomberg paywall limit:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/some-vaccines-help-nations-exit-the-covid-19-pandemic-faster-than-others

https://www.asiainsurancepost.com/ecoinvestdemography/some-vaccines-help-nations-exit-pandemic-faster-others

[Jeffr2]

mRNA jabs are definitely better.  Sadly, a majority of the world doesn't have access to them.  In the end, it's all about keeping people from dying or ending up in the hospital.  And all jabs do a good job at that.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I got some exciting news for you: Chinese firms are also in the process of developing mRNA vaccines.

It's the technology of the future.  Vaccines like are being made in China will be ancient history in the not too distant future.  Plus, some rumors about a pill for covid, and other diseases also!!

[Scott]

A post with false or misleading information and replies reported and removed.  

 

[asiacurious]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

mRNA jabs are definitely better.  Sadly, a majority of the world doesn't have access to them.  In the end, it's all about keeping people from dying or ending up in the hospital.  And all jabs do a good job at that.

 

Very true.  I personally would prefer to hold out for an mRNA vaccine, but I'm also slowly coming around to idea that it may be better to take whatever is available.

 

It'll probably come down to whether there's any sign that private hospitals are close to getting the Moderna vaccine by the time the AZ or Sinovac vaccines are finally offered to expats here.

[Jeffr2]

39 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

 

Very true.  I personally would prefer to hold out for an mRNA vaccine, but I'm also slowly coming around to idea that it may be better to take whatever is available.

 

It'll probably come down to whether there's any sign that private hospitals are close to getting the Moderna vaccine by the time the AZ or Sinovac vaccines are finally offered to expats here.

From what I've been reading, it's a long interval between shots for AZ.  8 to 12 weeks.  And some research is ongoing showing it might be better for your next jab to be something like Pfizer.  You get better protection mixing things up.

 

I'm considering this also...

[cclub75]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

It's the technology of the future.  Vaccines like are being made in China will be ancient history in the not too distant future. 

 

It's so futuristic... that we don't even know what they will do on the long term !

 

That's great. We are very excited to... find out ! ????

 

More seriously, you like new ? Good for you.

 

But don't tell us that there isn't any risk, because no one can say that...

 

You, nor the pharmaceutical companies, the gouvernment, the scientists.

 

So personally, before to put something so new, so unknown into my veins... I' d rather wait.

 

A few years.

[asiacurious]

26 minutes ago, cclub75 said:

It's so futuristic... that we don't even know what they will do on the long term !

 

SNIP

 

26 minutes ago, cclub75 said:

But don't tell us that there isn't any risk, because no one can say that...

You, nor the pharmaceutical companies, the gouvernment, the scientists.

So personally, before to put something so new, so unknown into my veins... I' d rather wait.

A few years.

 

 

I'm curious....   To you, how many years is a "few years"?  Is it three?  Five?  Ten?  Fifty?  Or is it amorphous?

[placeholder]

Your summary isn't accurate. The article says that the mRNA vaccines are better at stopping the spread. Not that the others do "appear to prevent the spread of Covid".

[cormanr7]

16 hours ago, asiacurious said:

“I would be careful about over-interpreting the data,” said Petrovsky at Flinders University, who points out that no head-to-head studies -- where shots are tested against each other -- have been performed to identify the best vaccines. For the mRNA shots, “data on their effects on transmission is very limited.”

Maybe he is not aware that in the UK more than 37 million people have received either one shot of either the Pfizer or the AZ vaccine and some 21 million two shots, so that should allow a head to head comparison, assuming that it is followed up properly.

[asiacurious]

37 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your summary isn't accurate. The article says that the mRNA vaccines are better at stopping the spread. Not that the others do "appear to prevent the spread of Covid".

 

You completely flipped -as in 180 degrees opposite - what I wrote.  Was this intentional?  I see that you apparently had another post in this thread deleted for false or misleading information.  Is this another case of that?

 

I did not write that the other vaccines do appear to prevent the spread.  I wrote that the other vaccines DO NOT appear to prevent the spread of Covid.

 

That is not a blanket 100% rule (nothing in life ever is) as the table included in the post illustrates and as the quote I also included clarifies.  That quote (with emphasis now added) was....

 

Evidence derived from the expanding global inoculation rollout indicates that the messenger RNA shots developed by Moderna Inc. or Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE are better at stopping people from becoming contagious, helping reduce onward transmission -- an unexpected extra benefit as the first wave of Covid vaccines were intended to stop people from becoming very sick.  Other vaccines, while effective in preventing acute illness or death from Covid, appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by asiacurious

[asiacurious]

33 minutes ago, cormanr7 said:

Maybe he is not aware that in the UK more than 37 million people have received either one shot of either the Pfizer or the AZ vaccine and some 21 million two shots, so that should allow a head to head comparison, assuming that it is followed up properly.

 

It would be great to see some data on that comparison.  I'll be on the lookout for it.

[Jeffr2]

3 hours ago, cclub75 said:

 

It's so futuristic... that we don't even know what they will do on the long term !

 

That's great. We are very excited to... find out ! ????

 

More seriously, you like new ? Good for you.

 

But don't tell us that there isn't any risk, because no one can say that...

 

You, nor the pharmaceutical companies, the gouvernment, the scientists.

 

So personally, before to put something so new, so unknown into my veins... I' d rather wait.

 

A few years.

Where did I say there wasn't any risk?  Problems with reading?  Drinking again?

[mrfill]

1 hour ago, asiacurious said:

 

You completely flipped -as in 180 degrees opposite - what I wrote.  Was this intentional?  I see that you apparently had another post in this thread deleted for false or misleading information.  Is this another case of that?

 

I did not write that the other vaccines do appear to prevent the spread.  I wrote that the other vaccines DO NOT appear to prevent the spread of Covid.

 

That is not a blanket 100% rule (nothing in life ever is) as the table included in the post illustrates and as the quote I also included clarifies.  That quote (with emphasis now added) was....

 

Evidence derived from the expanding global inoculation rollout indicates that the messenger RNA shots developed by Moderna Inc. or Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE are better at stopping people from becoming contagious, helping reduce onward transmission -- an unexpected extra benefit as the first wave of Covid vaccines were intended to stop people from becoming very sick.  Other vaccines, while effective in preventing acute illness or death from Covid, appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree.

 

 

The second and fourth paragraphs contradict each other.

You say "other vaccines do not appear to prevent the spread of covid" and the article says they "appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree."

When the article uses the term 'to the same degree' does NOT mean 'at all', just that the level is reduced.

[asiacurious]

26 minutes ago, mrfill said:

The second and fourth paragraphs contradict each other.

You say "other vaccines do not appear to prevent the spread of covid" and the article says they "appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree."

When the article uses the term 'to the same degree' does NOT mean 'at all', just that the level is reduced.

 

I see your point and I agree that I could have been clearer.  Were I able to edit that original post I would write my TL:DR bullets like this:

• mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer/ BioNTech) appear to prevent the spread of Covid by those who are vaccinated (which helps with achieving herd immunity).
• Adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca) and inactivated virus vaccines (Sinopharm and Sinovac) DO NOT appear to prevent the spread of Covid by those who are vaccinated to the same extent.  Vaccinated people appear to be mostly protected from severe illness or death, but they can still get sick and importantly, can still spread Covid.

So the original was inartful phrasing on my part.  (I invite an admin to add those four bold words on my behalf if they wish.) 

 

I will note however that I did include other things in the post to make clear that the the article was not saying one vaccine was 100% effective against the spread and the other one was 100% ineffective:

• The title of this thread - "much more" does not indicate absolute terms
• As you point out, the quote I included from the article includes the bit, "appear not to have this extra perk to the same degree."
• I (mildly) advocated that if the AZ or Sinopharm/Sinovac vaccines are all that are available, it's probalby good to get one of those as they do prevent death, "have the same level of protection or the same benefit of allowing for herd immunity."

[xylophone]

6 hours ago, cclub75 said:

So personally, before to put something so new, so unknown into my veins... I' d rather wait.

 

Don't worry old chap, the vaccination does not go into your veins, and if it does, it's going to cause you one hell of a lot of problems.

 

Thought I'd better let you know for your peace of mind!

[DavisH]

6 hours ago, cormanr7 said:

Maybe he is not aware that in the UK more than 37 million people have received either one shot of either the Pfizer or the AZ vaccine and some 21 million two shots, so that should allow a head to head comparison, assuming that it is followed up properly.

Real world data shows them to have similar efficacy for symptomatic infection. 

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/evidence-indicates-astrazeneca-and-pfizer-covid-va

https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/pfizer-astrazeneca-vaccines-provide-similar-protection-against-symptomatic-covid-19-study-1805037-2021-05-21

[DerbyDan]

The scary part about this new info is it's just coming out now suggests studies were not done properly. I hope we don't get any more curve balls.

 

I'm still would suggest jabs, nothing is ever 100% and waiting is more risky then just doing nothing.

[friendofthai]

I see that there are different opinions about Pfizer in Europe. For example, it is widely used in UK. But Hungary has opted out of a new agreement that the EU has signed with Pfizer and BioNTech:

https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-opt-out-eu-vaccines/31265046.html

Vaccines from China and Russia are being used extensively in this country.

Another European country - San Marino - is using Sputnik V only and prefer not to use Pfizer at all.

[Jeffr2]

4 hours ago, friendofthai said:

I see that there are different opinions about Pfizer in Europe. For example, it is widely used in UK. But Hungary has opted out of a new agreement that the EU has signed with Pfizer and BioNTech:

https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-opt-out-eu-vaccines/31265046.html

Vaccines from China and Russia are being used extensively in this country.

Another European country - San Marino - is using Sputnik V only and prefer not to use Pfizer at all.

Nice try again.  Spoken like a true Russian.  Bashing the Western jabs and promoting the Russian one. 

 

San Marino did this because they could get this unproven jab quicker than Pfizer.  And used it to lure unsuspecting tourists.  Terrible.

 

Hungry is totally tied to Russia.  You don't see any wealthy countries using Sputnik.  Only the poor ones, or with ties to Russia.

[Pattaya Spotter]

Isn't this just saying what's well known...vaccines that are most effective at suppressing viral replication in the body (mRNA) vaccines will be by definition the most effective at suppressing transmission? Transmission is by exhalation of fairly large amounts of virus particles, which are the lowest in mRNA vaccinated individuals. 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Nice try again.  Spoken like a true Russian.  Bashing the Western jabs and promoting the Russian one. 

 

San Marino did this because they could get this unproven jab quicker than Pfizer.  And used it to lure unsuspecting tourists.  Terrible.

 

Hungry is totally tied to Russia.  You don't see any wealthy countries using Sputnik.  Only the poor ones, or with ties to Russia.

I'm not defending the Sputnik vaccine, and there's no excuse for not conducting full phase 3 trials and not releasing all the data,  but I don't think San Marino used it to lure in tourists. And the figures do show that San Marino has pretty much wiped out the pandemic. So, it was a risky move on their part, but it seems that it did pay off.

[Jeffr2]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not defending the Sputnik vaccine, and there's no excuse for not conducting full phase 3 trials and not releasing all the data,  but I don't think San Marino used it to lure in tourists. And the figures do show that San Marino has pretty much wiped out the pandemic. So, it was a risky move on their part, but it seems that it did pay off.

Russia cut a lot of corners developing this jab.  You might remember the scientist who jabbed himself way before clinical trails were really underway.  I agree, it's probably a good jab, but without the clinical trial data, impossible for others to approve this. 

 

As for San Marino, it's just a small city inside Italy.  Locals travel back and forth all day.  Kinda like saying Khon Kaen has done a great job here in Thailand. 

 

https://www.thelocal.it/20210512/san-marino-invites-tourists-to-get-vaccinated-for-50-euros/

 

San Marino offers tourists Sputnik vaccine for €50

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Russia cut a lot of corners developing this jab.  You might remember the scientist who jabbed himself way before clinical trails were really underway.  I agree, it's probably a good jab, but without the clinical trial data, impossible for others to approve this. 

 

As for San Marino, it's just a small city inside Italy.  Locals travel back and forth all day.  Kinda like saying Khon Kaen has done a great job here in Thailand. 

 

https://www.thelocal.it/20210512/san-marino-invites-tourists-to-get-vaccinated-for-50-euros/

 

San Marino offers tourists Sputnik vaccine for €50

Actually, it's just the opposite. If residents of San Marino are very low rates of  symptoms and mortality, despite the fact that they are being swamped with unvaccinated persons from elsewhere, that's actually an indication of the vaccine's effectiveness..

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/san-marino

 

And they only very recently started offering vaccinations to non-citizens, May 17th.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/san-marino-offer-tourists-russias-sputnik-v-covid-19-vaccine-2021-05-12/

 

 Before that Italian border crossers would try in vain to get vaccinated there. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/world/europe/italy-san-marino-sputnik-vaccine.html

[sabaijai]

22 hours ago, DavisH said:

Real world data shows them to have similar efficacy for symptomatic infection. 

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/evidence-indicates-astrazeneca-and-pfizer-covid-va

https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/pfizer-astrazeneca-vaccines-provide-similar-protection-against-symptomatic-covid-19-study-1805037-2021-05-21

 

Thanks, excellent info.

[Jeffr2]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, it's just the opposite. If residents of San Marino are very low rates of  symptoms and mortality, despite the fact that they are being swamped with unvaccinated persons from elsewhere, that's actually an indication of the vaccine's effectiveness..

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/san-marino

 

And they only very recently started offering vaccinations to non-citizens, May 17th.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/san-marino-offer-tourists-russias-sputnik-v-covid-19-vaccine-2021-05-12/

 

 Before that Italian border crossers would try in vain to get vaccinated there. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/world/europe/italy-san-marino-sputnik-vaccine.html

Look at Italy's rate also.  Not far off....

 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/italy

 

I think the Russian jab is an OK one.  Other than the one glitch where live viruses were found in one batch. LOL

 

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210428-brazil-says-russian-covid-vaccine-carried-live-cold-virus

Tainted batches of Russia's Sputnik V Covid vaccine sent to Brazil carried a live version of a common cold-causing virus, the South American country's health regulator reported in a presentation explaining its decision to ban the drug's import.

 

Top virologist Angela Rasmussen told AFP the finding "raises questions about the integrity of the manufacturing processes" and could be a safety issue for people with weaker immune systems, if the problem was found to be widespread.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Jeffr2

[friendofthai]

On 5/25/2021 at 5:12 AM, Jeffr2 said:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210428-brazil-says-russian-covid-vaccine-carried-live-cold-virus

Tainted batches of Russia's Sputnik V Covid vaccine sent to Brazil carried a live version of a common cold-causing virus, the South American country's health regulator reported in a presentation explaining its decision to ban the drug's import.

They rejected Sputnik as a result of pressure from the US ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/16/hhs-brazil-sputnik-russia/ )
And how do they feel like after it has become clear to everyone that "Sputnik V vaccine highly effective against Brazil virus variant"?
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/russias-sputnik-v-vaccine-highly-effective-against-brazil-virus-variant-2021-05-24/
My friend from Czech Republic says people are very angry with politicians and their ugly games that result in a shortage of vaccine. And on the example of Slovakia, we see how such games end:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/slovakia-2nd-eu-country-approve-russias-sputnik-77914781

[friendofthai]

mRNA is a new technology. Many people think that choosing a newer thing is always better.
But it happens very often in our life that a newer thing is definitely worse.

For instance, there are thousands of passenger aircrafts in the air now. Can you see any supersonic aircraft? But several decades ago they were considered to be the future. So did airships.
Let's say you want to travel from Beijing to Shanghai. What kind of transport would you like to choose. In case of aircraft you have to stand and wait for hours in a number of queues - airport entrance queue, registration queue, aircraft entrance queue, baggage claim queue. So most people choose the 19th century thing - train - instead of the 20th century thing - aircraft. You just scan you ticket and take a seat in you train. Nothing to be worried about. The train (the 19th century thing actually) from Beijing to Shanghai can arrive even faster (4+ hours) than aircraft (about 5 hours including your time in endless queues).
In case of vaccines we should also use rational thinking instead of emotions. And if we do so, we suddenly see that the ancient vaccine technologies used by China and Russia can perform even better.