The report you're linking to starts from Dec 31, when Delta was still widely circulating (and which had much higher fatality rates, further compounding issues with a raw measurement of "case fatality" for COVID-19). It doesn't attempt to isolate performance against specific strains, unlike the Yale research, which does. It's also a biased sample, since the Pfizer vaccine ("Comirnaty") isn't approved in China, so the people who have it are likely significantly different in many respects from those who got Sinovac ("CoronaVac"). The unvaccinated groups are also likely a biased sample. It's a raw data dump: useful if you have nothing else, but we have peer reviewed research that does attempt to correct for those kinds of flaws on exactly this topic.
If you think I'm being "misleading," here's a direct quote from Yale statement:
"However, those [Sinovac] vaccinations alone are of no help against the widely circulating omicron variant, shows a new study by researchers at Yale and the Dominican Republic. The results are published in the journal Nature Medicine.
An analysis of blood serum from 101 individuals from the Dominican Republic showed that omicron infection produced no neutralizing antibodies among those who received the standard two-shot regimen of the Sinovac vaccine.
...
But when researchers compared these samples with blood serum samples stored at Yale, they found that even those who had received two Sinovac shots and a booster had antibody levels that were only about the same as those who’d received two shots of the mRNA vaccines but no booster shot."
That's pretty much exactly what I posted! So no, I don't think I'm being misleading.
Regardless, even if you suppose the entire HK dataset is 100% Omicron cases, and ignore the sample biases, it's still pretty poor compared to Pfizer; the OP claimed they were roughly the same, which I was refuting.