Best Posts in Thread: Pros and cons of Coronavac (Sinovac)

You could make the same argument about almost any newer drug. How long is long enough? Is it 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Then consider that there are different physiologies, genetics and predisposition to health issues, the could be coincidental or aggravate by the drug. Look at the warning on the drugs we take for typical medical conditions. Does that stop you from taking them? If that doesn't scare you, I'm not sure what will. As an example, drugs for depression that could cause suicide. Drug testing isn't perfect, so yes "bad" drugs do get out. In the end, it's a personal decision. From what I have seen, the evidence suggests that vaccines are less likely to be dangerous than many other drugs that are out there. Typically, I would think it's a personal decision, but there is a slight difference with a virus because it not only affects you. Smoking is an example of a regulated activity due to its affects on non-smokers. If a person decides not to take his heart medicine, it only affects him. If a person is reckless and gives the virus to others who die from it. How should that be looked at? On the other hand, the flu shot is not handled in the same manner?

 

There are a lot of differing opinions surrounding the use of the Coronavac vaccine from Sinovac.
For sure, Sinovac/China made no friends in scientific circles worldwide by flouting regular scientific procedure and publication (they still haven't published their phase 3 trial results, even though those trials (in Brazil and Turkey) have long been finished).
Despite this, WHO approved the vaccine for emergency use, possibly/probably because such approval will help the Covax initiative to provide covid vaccines for poorer countries.
Moreover, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) started a "rolling review" for CoronaVac on May 4 this year.

Of course, it's everybody's individual choice to shun any or all vaccines (although the president apparently intends to take away that choice).

However, on the face of it it would seem that the argument against Sinovac from a practical standpoint doesn't hold much water.
The overall efficacy (in preventing infection) may be lower for CoronaVac than for Western alternatives, but the efficiency in keeping a patient out of hospital and cemetary appears at least similar to the likes of Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca/J&J-Janssen.

To me personally that means that since there's no alternatives currently available in Dumaguete the choice to get CoronaVac (Sinovac) is an easy one.
Three considerations:
a. no worse side effects than other vaccines,
b. even with the somewhat compromised efficacy it still offers reasonable protection against getting infected/ill and excellent protection against getting seriously ill / dying;
c. as Toto mentioned earlier, if at a later stage there will be a "better" vaccine available, nothing will prevent me from getting a booster shot then.
Accordingly I got my first dose of CoronaVac/Sinovac the other day.

Does that mean I have no reservations at all? No of course not. The emergence of new virus strains that possibly evade/escape the vaccin induced immunity is still a risk, and the more people in a country choose not to get vaccinated, the bigger the risk of such new variants popping up. Similarly, it still seems a fallacy to think the entire planet will be offered a vaccine any time soon (that might still take 2 to 3 years, assuming we don't get thrown back to square one in the meantime by a serious new variant that escapes all immunity).

 

Fourth consideration:
Rapidly created vaccines have had no real time scale to show any long-term side-effects.

In the short to medium term they offer the major benefit you stated "reasonable protection against getting infected/ill and excellent protection against getting seriously ill / dying" but there is absolutely no evidence to show what will happen in the longer term - this could be, for example, long-term side effects from the vaccines themselves or the response to a future vaccination (akin to anaphylactic shock, which usually is a result of meeting the antigen previously and being sensitised to it).

I know I am being very cautious (my caution also led me to warn about mutations back in Jan/Feb 2020 and this was dismissed by those who now write here about mutations! And led me to say at about the same time that not wearing face masks to avoid infection was a big mistake and I had members here disputing that endlessly) but if anyone can show me the long-term effects now, then please go ahead. I absolutely agree that those who feel very vulnerable should get vaccinated now and not worry about future risks and those who want to be part of a herd immunity should do the same. Those who feel less vulnerable and are willing to do a lot to keep themselves safe, have to consider the long-term risks.

Also, if a gun is held to my head then I will accept the vaccine as even my cautious long-term risk assessment will go out of the window,

 

A person who decides not to be vaccinated, thinking long-term about a rushed vaccine, has IMO a very strong duty to himself to take extra care to be safe and not to get infected and, in so doing, is doing his duty not to be a person infecting others.

In the current situation within this country and with this virus it is easily possible to avoid infection. Most infections are due to people who showed not enough care (either to avoid infection or to avoid infecting others).

Btw, a medicine may have side effects (and most do) but soon get destroyed in the liver - vaccines may alter the immune system in a way that most medicines do not (as they do not require an immune response to function). And the effect vaccines have may be long-term.