"I called Sinovac crap in relation to the question, which was related to travel."Big Boy wrote:I called Sinovac crap in relation to the question, which was related to travel. Yes, if you want to travel it is hopeless.thecolonel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:26 am My comments directly addressed you calling Sinovac "crap".
This is not my personal view, it is the opinion of many Governments around the world, and the Thai Government does not disagree because they are complying with the wishes of these other Governments, and re-vaccinating those who need to travel for education. For travel purposes, there are many descriptive I could have used that would have meant 'crap' - apologies if the nasty word offended anybody.
I was one of the first people on this forum to accept Sinovac. I didn't accept it because it was crap. I accepted it because I understood it would probably do what I needed it to do, and combined with an AZ jab would hopefully provide the required efficacy to keep me safe. I accepted it because I have no immediate plans to travel outside of Thailand.
It is a fact that double Sinovac loses it's efficacy very quickly, so isn't really fit for purpose. This is why front line workers are having to have boosters of other vaccines, and in Thailand, Sinovac is now a definite no for hospital personnel. Of course the doctors have say Sinovac is fine, but it is so good they and their teams have to totally avoid it. Ask yourself why?
I don't claim to know any of the clever stuff (I doubt whether any of us can), but am commenting based upon what Governments and their experts are telling us e.g. if it's so good, why are much needed vaccines being used to give essential booster shots when the country is trying to vaccinate the rest of the population?
It is clear to me that you have taken my answer to HHTel's question totally out context, and have decided to attack me, rather than the question. I have no idea what Israel or Pfizer has to do with HHTel's question, but you are attempting to bring in other factors, which are not relevant to Sinovac's restrictions on travel, and I refuse to be drawn. Of course, you are in the vaccines thread, so you are perfectly entitled to debate them with anybody that wants to play.
No, you were alleging it was crap regardless of travel actually. That's perfectly clear from your responses below
Plus you then go on to go to say its not fit for purpose in your last post
Re SV losing it's efficacy quickly.... so does Pfizer(Google UK study published in The Independent) so are you being equitable? Is Pfizer crap too then?
Im not attacking 'you' (I don't know you) I was attacking you calling Sinovac crap when you've no proper grounds to ALLIED TO telling us to stick to the facts!
Has there been a scientific study done that concluded SV is " not fit for purpose" as you state and recommends to WHO to remove it? If not, who are you to say its not fit for purpose?
Re ask myself why? Because the other vaccines are thought to be 'better' (nb at this point) Eg if Pfizer is better than SV, that doesn't mean SV is "crap". Why cant it be just not quite as good?
Re Israel, that was in direct response to your point about 4 doses. When I present you with 'evidence' that that doesn't prove SV crap, you suddenly claim I'm ''trying to bring in other factors " that are not relevant.
Hahaha, what utter BS! They were perfectly relevant to the point you raised.
Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk
. The first jab I didn't feel a thing, but this time it was like I felt every millimeter the needle went in. Down to the skill of the person doing it I suppose. 
hahuahin
