Key problem of
$Novavax (NVAX.US)$ is lacking field data but several others have.
We now know so called 90%+ effecacy rates in phase 3 tests for many vaccines are really ..., you know. They were conducted under special controls, for instance, exclude risky people, etc. Furthermore, mask mandate, etc. policies expanded their "effecacy" - actually accumulative effecacy - should be vaccine + mask, etc.
For
$BioNTech (BNTX.US)$/
$Pfizer (PFE.US)$,
$Moderna (MRNA.US)$,
$AstraZeneca (AZN.US)$,
$SINOPHARM (01099.HK)$,
$Sinovac Biotech (SVA.US)$ (trade suspended), at least, we have lots of field data on safety and real effecacy. Unless you are corrupted health officials own lots of NVAX shares, how dare you introduce NVAX to replace known ones?
Not to mention, NVAX still has not given a plausible explanation of their low effecacy in phase 2b test conducted in South Africa. Rather, NVAX left (should we say "flee"?) S. Africa and conducted phase 3 in US and Mexico.
Not just in US and Europe, even in China, you can see several late comers, despite claim better than in-use HK:1099 and SVA (trade supspended), they got little business.
I doubt Chinese government want SVA resume trade in Nasdaq because the company now worth a lot. As I read, in volume, SAV has sold most vaccines, BNTX/PFE cam second, and 099 third.
By the way, 1099 does show good safety, much better than BNTX/PFE:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473339/
![[undefined]](https://static.moomoo.com/nnq/emoji/static/image/default/default-black.png?imageMogr2/thumbnail/36x36 "undefined"){kind=small}
Falling angel : despicable
MonkeyGee : believable