Many questions remain on Covid-19 vaccines, but they’re the best option for now

Hong Kong must address the legitimate worry about the efficacy and side effects of the three jabs it has chosen, especially Sinovac
But no vaccine is 100 per cent effective at stopping disease, and vaccination may soon be our passport to travelling again

Peter Kammerer

Published: 6:45am, 23 Feb 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

Efficacy rates. Herd immunity. Transmission prevention. None of these terms bothered me a month ago. With Hong Kong expected to begin Covid-19 vaccination on Friday, they suddenly seem important. But I’m no scientist and I want to have a normal life again. I intend to get a shot, no matter where it comes from.

That may seem a rash decision. The vaccines Hong Kong intends to use, by China’s Sinovac, the United States-German partnership Pfizer-BioNTech and the British-Swedish firm AstraZeneca, have been rushed in research, testing and production.

The usual years of data collection have been compressed into months. A government I’ve lost trust with that has mismanaged the Covid-19 response is driving the process and politics seems to be behind its decisions.

There has been a worrying level of opaqueness about the Sinovac vaccine, which has unaccountably leapfrogged the Pfizer-BioNTech one to become the first to be used for immunisation.

02:06

Coronavirus Hong Kong: first Covid-19 vaccines land in city

Within days of Secretary for Food and Health Professor Sophia Chan Siu-chee giving approval, one million jabs had arrived, an indecently quick shipping time that gave the impression the decision had been inevitable. The government’s 12-member vaccine advisory panel had given its recommendation for use, even though it has not attained the same international levels of acceptance as the other two.

Final, third-phase, data has not been published in peer-reviewed medical journals, efficacy results vary widely between countries, ranging from 50.4 per cent to 91.25 per cent, and it seems uncertain how effective it is in people over 59 years of age. The World Health Organization has not given it emergency use approval, unlike for the other two, with Pfizer-BioNTech having recognised efficacy of 95 per cent and AstraZeneca about 62 per cent.

A campaign is under way in mainland China to discredit the Western vaccines, claiming a lack of transparency about their efficacy and safety. Because mainland media is either state-run or controlled, I have doubts about its objectivity. I’ve seen the great wall of censorship in action first-hand with television news blackouts and blocked internet websites.

That said, the efficacy numbers don’t necessarily mean one vaccine is better than the other. Each claims to give protection for severely-ill patients, but what about that fabled goal of herd immunity?

Experts believe the less effective a vaccine is, the higher the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. So does that mean Pfizer-BioNTech, with its 95 per cent efficacy, is best? Nor do we know for sure how effective these vaccines are when protecting against new variants of the coronavirus.

It is also not known if they prevent transmission of Covid-19 from person-to-person or if they are safe for pregnant women, those with medical conditions or interact negatively with certain types of medications.

Explainer | Why more contagious Covid-19 variants are emerging

Further, the older people get, the weaker their immune systems become. Efficacy rates of just over 50 per cent are obviously even lower for over-60s. So, for the 1.96 million Hongkongers aged 60 and over, what does that mean for the Sinovac and AstraZeneca jabs?

While I assume they are fine for someone who is healthy and below 60, how about a person who is in their 80s and has multiple health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure and the like? I would think not, but the government believes otherwise.

There are too many questions and uncertainties. But I do know that Covid-19 has upturned our lives and economy. No vaccine is 100 per cent effective at stopping the spread of disease or completely safe. But as long as the benefits outweigh the risks, it is worth getting a jab.

Besides, I am sure proof of vaccination will be needed to travel again and it may even become mandatory for employment, school or use of government facilities.

I have no qualms about getting a jab, no matter which one. But authorities have also pledged to give us a choice and they have to respect our individual decisions.

Peter Kammerer is a senior writer at the Post