[ad_1]
KAOHSIUNG (News from Taiwan) – Finally, there is a light at the end of the Wuhan coronavirus tunnel. The pandemic that the Chinese regime has imposed on the world has decimated the world economy and claimed more than 1.5 million lives.
But while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) caused the pandemic, it is the democratic free market that has given us hope for a solution. Vaccines that have been responsibly developed, thoroughly tested, and approved by trusted regulators all come from private sector companies: Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca.
It is these vaccines that offer hope. AstraZeneca in particular does not have to be stored at a very low temperature, which means that it can be easily transported almost anywhere.
It is also the most affordable of the three, and AstraZeneca is committed to providing it at a cost worldwide until the pandemic is over. This is the free market that works best, compressing a process that often takes a decade into less than a year and ensuring that public health takes precedence over profit.
Authoritative vaccines
Of course, two other vaccines are currently being implemented for people. One is known as SinoVac and the other is Sputnik, and these have been “created” by the Chinese and Russian regimes, respectively.
The word “created” is put in quotes for a very specific reason. The companies creating the vaccines that offer hope of ending the pandemic have been the target of regular cyberattacks throughout this year, some of which have been successful, and the culprit finger for these attacks is pointed squarely at Moscow and Beijing.
Earlier this week, Taiwan’s Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) announced that the nation would not purchase the SinoVac vaccine. The reasoning was very simple: there are significant safety concerns and questions about the quality of the vaccine and the testing and regulatory scheme it has gone through.
They are absolutely valid reasons and that other countries have also expressed. Needless to say, the Kuomintang (KMT) and its supporters have accused the independent CECC of anti-Chinese bias without bothering to address the legitimate scientific concerns they have raised.
The truth is that we still don’t know enough about SinoVac to know if it is safe and effective to use. The essential phase three trials are still ongoing.
But there are many doubts and questions.
Information on the phase one and phase two trials, which was published in The Lancet, shows that, according to the author of the article, Zhu Fengcai, the vaccine is only suitable for “emergency use.” Despite this, the CCP is believed to have already administered the vaccine to more than 1 million people, ignoring the potential risks to their health and that of the general Chinese public.
The company behind SinoVac said tests on 1,000 volunteers found that about 5 percent suffered from fatigue or malaise after receiving the vaccine – side effects not found in any of the three approved Western vaccines. One participant in the SinoVac trials in Brazil died, although this is not believed to be the result of the vaccine.
Vaccine Diplomacy
Concerns about SinoVac are not directed at the scientists behind it, many of whom are undoubtedly dedicated professionals. Rather, they focus on the system in which these scientists operate and the motivations behind the early launch of the vaccine.
The CCP’s reputation has taken a massive hit as a result of the pandemic, which its cover-up attempt caused it to spread around the world. Winning the vaccine race is likely to be seen by Beijing as a way to regain some credibility.
Similarly, Russia views the vaccine as the modern equivalent of the space race – a propaganda challenge that must be won at all costs.
That’s why both Russia and China began administering the vaccine long before it went through proper clinical trials, and thus long before its safety and efficacy could be known. Both countries have cut corners and ignored regulatory standards, and both have put their people at risk for a propaganda victory.
Earlier this week, we reported on how 47 Chinese workers in Uganda had tested positive for the Wuhan coronavirus despite allegedly receiving the Chinese vaccine. The United Arab Emirates recently reported that the vaccine showed an 86 percent efficacy rate, but this incident may well cast that figure into question.
It is difficult to see how any country can compare the process by which Russian and Chinese vaccines have been developed with those used by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and conclude that it is better to buy the former based on public health considerations. The only reasons you can choose Chinese or Russian vaccines are cost, diplomatic pressure, or a combination of the two.
In Taiwan, the CECC and the government have prioritized public health and ensured that the country does not suffer from this pandemic as it did with the SARS outbreak in 2003. The approach has been phenomenally successful – praised around the world – and cases of coronavirus. in Taiwan they have been few and far between.
The CECC, with good reason, is unwilling to bet on public health now by investing in a vaccine that has not gone through due process and is still plagued with important questions and concerns. Why would you do it when there are already a number of vaccines that have been shown to be largely effective and are already being implemented in countries where regulations meet the high standards set here?
Life in Taiwan has continued practically as usual during the pandemic. Waiting a little longer to get a vaccine is not a problem for most people.
The alternative of implementing an ineffective and potentially dangerous vaccine could undo all the hard work and goodwill that the CECC and the Taiwanese government have accumulated. It could also pose a greater risk to public health than the coronavirus itself.
[ad_2]
