mRNA vaccines are not "hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID". Sputnik V has around the same efficacy after 1 dosis that Biontech has after 2. That's 1-0 for Sputnik in my book.
"With the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, protection against symptomatic COVID-19 was found to be 52% from 12 days after the first dose (immunity takes time to build). Protection then rose to 95% after the second dose." [1]
"Vaccine efficacy, based on the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases from 21 days after the first dose of vaccine, is reported as 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2), and the suggested lessening of disease severity after one dose is particularly encouraging for current dose-sparing strategies." [2]
Dear mRNA-ists, how is 95 % after second dosis (mRNA) vs 91·6% after first dosis (non-mRNA) worth being called "hugely outperforming"?
And I didn't even go into the severe side effects of mRNA vaccines (AZ: Blood clotting in brain and/or lung; Biontech: Myocarditis, Anaphylaxia) vs virtual absence of side effects in traditional vaccines. But how dare I point those out, that's heresy, right? :O
[1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-import...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/13873971863720058...