观点/评论（中英对照）：一项误导性研究结果曾让我质疑接受疫苗的决定
A misleading study results had made me question my decision to receive vaccines
来源: 大中资讯 南茜(Nancy Jin)
12月30日在健康科学预印本平台上发表的一项加拿大研究得出结论称：“三剂mRNA COVID-19疫苗防止 Omicron感染的有效性仅为37%，而两剂疫苗则显示出负面保护作用。”该项加拿大临床评估科学研究所（ICES）的研究结果公布之日正当激增的Omicron疫苗感染病例使疫苗有效性受到严重质疑之时。 除了加强针显示很弱的保护作用之外，两剂疫苗的负面效果的戏剧性结论，既接种疫苗的人比未接种疫苗的人更易受到感染震惊了学术界。 这一结论还动摇了那些曾在科学建议下卷其袖管接受疫苗人士的信心，让包括我自己在内的很多人怀疑他们接种疫苗的决定是否正确。
"Any three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were just 37 percent effective against Omicron infection, while two doses showed negative protection, "a Canadian study published on the preprint server for health science on Dec. 30 concluded. The study by the Institute for Clinical Evaluation Sciences (ICES) came out when surging Omicron breakthrough cases put the vaccine effectiveness under heightened scrutiny. Apart from the weak protection by the booster shot, the dramatic finding of negative efficacy of two doses – where the vaccinated got more infection than the unvaccinated -- shocked the academic world. It shook the confidence of those who had rolled up their sleeves for the vaccines under the scientific advice, leaving many – myself included -- questioning whether they had made the right decision to receive the jabs.
毫无疑问，这项研究结果进一步加剧了席卷北美的反疫苗情绪。反疫苗组织也趁机利用这项研究结果动摇公众对疫苗的信心。一些人称加强针根本对Covid-19无效，而另一些人则批评FDA根本就不该批准接种疫苗。这项研究结果也在社交媒体上引起了轩然大波，自发布以来的两周内在推特上转发了15,000多次。 Sputnik V背后的势力在12月将该研究结果发给100万Twitter粉丝，大肆宣称两剂mRNA疫苗的“负面效果”和加强剂的“迅速减弱的效果”。
Undoubtedly, the study results had further fueled vaccine hesitancy sweeping through North America. Anti-vaccine groups have tapped into the study to shake public confidence over the vaccine. Some alleged boosters didn't work against Covid-19, while others are critical of the FDA's approval of the vaccine altogether. The preprint had caused a firestorm on social media, shared more than 15,000 times on Twitter in the two weeks since published. The group behind Sputnik V shared the results to its one million Twitter followers in Dec., saying the study showed "negative efficacy" of two mRNA vaccine doses and "quickly waning efficiency" of a booster.
此外，该研究结果导致对疫苗的广泛困惑，并成为少数反疫苗的科学家和学者贬低疫苗声誉以及鼓吹对疫苗偏见的利器。加州大学旧金山分校流行病学副教授Vinay Prasad博士在推特上质问为什么美国食品药品监督管理局 (FDA) 和疾病控制中心 (CDC) 会推出Omicron的加强针。该研究结果还被加拿大联邦政府的 Covid-19免疫工作引用。《环球邮报》发表了精神科医生诺曼·多伊奇（Norman Doidge）的专栏文章，引用该研究及其对两剂疫苗负面有效性的“解释”以阐明其对疫苗怀疑态度的立场。对负效应的解释称接种疫苗可能会削弱我们的免疫系统，因而导致接种疫苗者感染率增加。
Moreover, the study results have caused widespread confusion, providing arsenals for a fringe minority of scientists and academics to disparage the vaccines' credibility and push their biased views on vaccines. Dr. Vinay Prasad, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of California-San Francisco, asked why the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would advise a booster for Omicron at all. The federal governments' Covid-19 immunity task force also highlighted the study. Dr. Norman Doidge, a psychiatrist, expressed skepticism over the vaccines' benefits through an op-ed on the Globe by citing the research and its "possible explanation" to the negative findings. It claimed that exposure to the vaccine might weaken our immune system, leading to an increased infection rate among those vaccinated.
事实上，这项尚未经同行评审的研究大大低估了Covid-19疫苗抵抗Omicron感染的保护作用。研究对象的行为和研究方法等因素对结果会造成很大影响，例如研究观察的时间、疫苗护照对感染病毒风险的改变，以及能获得COVID-19检测机会之变化等。 该项研究的主要作者Jeff Kwong医生向CBC表示，在采用了更多数据后该研究显示出完全不同的结果。他表示：“我们正在增加两周的数据，看起来结果不再显示疫苗负有效性，而是与英国的研究结果更呈一致。当然，疫苗对Omicron的感染保护性不如德尔塔，但从未达到负值……且有效性随着加强针而增加。”
It has turned out that the preprint study vastly underestimated the Covid-19 vaccines’ protection against the Omicron variant. The results were found to have been influenced by behavioral and methodological issues, such as the timing of the observational study, how vaccine passports altered individual risk, and changes in access to COVID-19 testing. The study's lead author Dr. Jeff Kwong told CBC News that the study showed different results after being updated with additional data. "We're in the process of adding two more weeks of data, and it looks like there's no more negative VE (vaccine effectiveness). Our results are now more in line with the data from the U.K. where it's lower, for sure, compared to Delta, but never getting to the negative…and then higher VE with the boost," he said.
英国的研究发现，虽然Omicron在很大程度上能逃避对先前感染的免疫力，但两剂疫苗提供了0%到20%的保护，而三剂则将保护率提高到了55%到80%之间。 此外，Ontario Dashboard数据显示，随着Omicron病例激增，疫苗可以大幅降低接种者的住院和ICU入住率。《环球邮报》已从Doidge医生观点文章的在线版本中删除了对安省研究结果的引用。
A U.K. study found that while Omicron largely evades immunity from prior infection, two doses provided just zero to 20 percent protection, three doses increased that to between 55 and 80 percent. Moreover, Ontario Dashboard data has shown vaccines offered significant protections against hospitalization and ICU occupancy as Omicron cases surge. The Globe has removed the reference to the Ontario study from the online version of Dr. Doidge's op-ed.
严重的Covid 19疫情给学术研究提出更强的紧迫感，学术研究错误也在所难免。消费者应参考广泛的科学研究结果，从多项学术分析中来获得更可靠的信息。有关疫苗的大量的更准确的在线信息让这项误导研究结果和错误指引相形见绌，而我又重新拾回了对疫苗的信心。
When Covid 19 has exuberated urgency on the research community, mistakes in academic studies happen. Consumers can obtain more credible evidence by referencing multiple analyses from a broad range of research. I've regained my confidence over the vaccine as more accurate information online drowns out the study’s misleading results.
网友评论
网友评论仅供其表达个人看法，并不表明大中资讯网立场。评论不可涉及非法、粗俗、猥亵、歧视，或令人反感的内容，本网站有权删除相关内容。