>>12531851it literally doesn't
>The efficacy of the Sputnik V vaccine is 91.4%, based on the second interim analysis of data obtained 28 days after administering the first dose https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/second-interim-analysis-of-clinical-trial-data-showed-a-91-4-efficacy-for-the-sputnik-v-vaccine-on-d/whereas the BioNTech vaccine has an efficacy of 95% at 95% confidence interval. Compare that to the Oxford vaccine which has an effectiveness of 70% at 95% confidence interval.
>mRNA has much higher efficiency.Also false, mRNA is a type of vector, and a vector alone does nothing without its payload. Of course, the vector can reduce the effectiveness of a vaccine if people become immune to the vector. This may be why the Oxford/AZ vaccine has a lower efficacy than the others, despite also targeting the spike protein, but Sputnik V uses two different adenoviruses for each dose, meaning that you shouldn't become immune to the vector reducing the effectiveness of the second dose. The BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have clearly shown efficacy, but not shown superior efficacy to the Russian vaccine, they're all in the 90 to 95% range, and there's nothing to distinguish between them in terms of efficacy that can't be attributed to statistical noise.
All that said, the only evidence for the Russian vaccine's efficacy is their own press release, as they haven't published their phase III results yet. So until they do it's absolutely possible to doubt their results.
