Submitted without comment for informational purposes only.

Comparison of the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong
Chris Ka Pun Mok, et al

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/resp.14191

Conclusion
*Vaccination with BNT162b2 induces stronger humoral responses than CoronaVac.
**CoronaVac induces higher CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell responses to the structural protein than BNT162b2.

Edited February 18, 20224 yr by connda

Not peer reviewed and from the Chinese. Right...not worth a read.

I wonder if the posting OP actually read what the study he posted says?

 

Regarding protection against COVID infection:

"It was reported that neutralizing antibody titres wane by 7.3-fold within 6 months of CoronaVac [Sinovac] vaccination,¹⁷ but comparable data are not available for BNT126b2 [Pfizer] vaccination. If we adjust for a 7.3-fold waning of antibody titres for both vaccines, we estimate that only eight (16.3%) of 49 receiving CoronaVac vaccines meet the protective threshold while 39 (79.6%) of 49 of those receiving BNT162b2 do so 6 months post-vaccination. This difference in immunogenicity may explain reported difference in vaccine efficacy between the two vaccines."

 

Regarding protection against serious illness and death:

" As it is likely that T-cell responses are important in limiting severity and fatal outcomes,^7-11 both vaccines may be effective in preventing such adverse outcomes of COVID-19."

7 hours ago, connda said:

Submitted without comment for informational purposes only.

Ignored without comment due to this official policy.

 

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/searo/thailand/2022_01_26_tha-sitrep-220-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=bf4f76d6_5

It's peer reviewed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/resp.14191

Respirology is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and clinically-relevant experimental respiratory biology and disease.

15 hours ago, ebice said:

 

Actually China started developing its first mRna vaccine back in March 2020. 

 

COVID: China is developing its own mRNA vaccine – and it’s showing early promise

February 15, 2022 1.03pm GMT

 

The results of an initial study of the vaccine in humans, where 120 volunteers were vaccinated with varying doses, were published in January 2022 in the Lancet.

 

The mRNA vaccines initially generated high levels of protection against getting COVID. And while the protection offered by two doses wanes over time and offers little protection against infection with omicron, the mRNA vaccines appear to offer the best protection against an omicron infection when used as boosters. They also continue to offer very impressive protection against severe disease. Early results suggest a third dose of Sinovac, in comparison, is unable to stop infection with the new variant (though these results are still in preprint, meaning they’re awaiting review by other scientists).

 

https://theconversation.com/covid-china-is-developing-its-own-mrna-vaccine-and-its-showing-early-promise-176319

 

In separate news:

 

 China to use BioNTech vaccine as booster shot, sources say

Joint venture with Fosun Pharma to make 100m to 200m vaccines a month

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Caixin/China-to-use-BioNTech-vaccine-as-booster-shot-sources-say

 

44 minutes ago, ebice said:

It's peer reviewed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/resp.14191

Respirology is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and clinically-relevant experimental respiratory biology and disease.

 

That's true. And the article was published so it's not a pre-preint anymore.

But it's also pay-to-play.

 In 2008, an article processing charge was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirology_(journal)

Edited February 18, 20224 yr by placeholder

A post with an apparent quote of something that wasn't attributed to any source nor linked via a required weblink has been removed.

 

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

That's true. And the article was published so it's not a pre-preint anymore.

But it's also pay-to-play.

 In 2008, an article processing charge was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirology_(journal)

The study is also from before August 2021 pre Omicron so pretty useless when the world including China is now affected with Omi

I have no doubt that Sinovac saved thousands, if not millions of lives.  It was available when other vaccines weren't.   If it has good memory ability with T and B cells, then it will be helpful to anyone getting infected.  

 

It will be years of studying all the various vaccines to find out which are really effective against the variants and how long immunity lasts.  It's important to remember that the body starts to naturally get rid of antibodies over time simply because they aren't needed.  It's the Memory cells that become important when a virus is circulating and antibody levels are low.  

 

Antibodies in the blood mean that the body can react immediately to the virus.  When they wane, then the memory cells get prompted to produce more should an infection occur.  The difference is that the memory cells take time to start producing new antibodies.   As a result, with the virus virtually raging around the planet, antibody levels was a key metric.  As it dies down, the Memory cells will be more important in the long-term fight against Covid.

 

No matter what vaccine is given, boosters seem to be necessary.  It's just a matter of how soon.  

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

China to use BioNTech vaccine as booster shot, sources say

When, last July?

Not happening yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/business/china-coronavirus-vaccines.html

6 hours ago, ebice said:

When, last July?

Not happening yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/business/china-coronavirus-vaccines.html

Probably because their own brand mnra suits them better, as in the other report published 3 days ago. It obviously cannot be approved until all trials are completed. 

 

I cannot access your link as you have to register

Edited February 18, 20224 yr by Bkk Brian

19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I wonder if the posting OP actually read what the study he posted says?

Yep.  I did. 

And the purpose of posting it was to compare and contrast the positive research for both vaccines types which this study show.  They both have their strengths. In future vaccine research, that should be taken in account in order to create more effective vaccines.

Edited February 19, 20224 yr by connda

On 2/18/2022 at 4:00 PM, Jeffr2 said:

Not peer reviewed and from the Chinese. Right...not worth a read.

"Not peer reviewed..."
It is peer reviewed.   

"...and from the Chinese."

Imho, allowing overt racist attitudes to get in the way of legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research and publications shouldn't be allowed in civil discourse.

Two posts commenting on other forum members have been removed (1) and edited (1).

 

on a side note - how surprised I was a few days ago, when I find out Austria doesn't accept sinovac and sinopharm travellers.

The last autumn they were one of the first ones (with switzerland, belgium) in europe to include those vaxes.

I would think the majority of jabbed with sinovac in thailand are not happy with their vax, but they had no any choice.

For foreigners it well might mean more than one booster for an international travel

On 2/19/2022 at 4:27 PM, connda said:

"Not peer reviewed..."
It is peer reviewed.   

"...and from the Chinese."

Imho, allowing overt racist attitudes to get in the way of legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research and publications shouldn't be allowed in civil discourse.

IMHO, transparent attempts to label as ‘racist’ any skepticism towards a totalitarian regime that very much controls academia and scientific institutions should get your automatically kicked off any platform...

 

Cos *obviously* “the Chinese” here means American-Chinese, Malaysian Chinese, Taiwanese-Chinese right?