Review essay about "Economist Espresso: A hard sell: vaccine diplomacy in the Philippines (Mar 4, 2021)."

 This review essay may contain some errors about the objective truth. Also, this review essay is completely written by myself. Therefore might have a biased opinion. Please tell me if this essay includes some errors about the objective truth. Also, I like to hear your idea about my opinion. Please leave them on the comment.

Philippine started their inoculation last week with the vaccine gained from COVAX. Like many other countries, healthcare labor like doctors and nurses are the first people who use vaccines since they are the vanguard coping Coronavirus. 

In the article, Philippinos prefer vaccines from AstraZeneca to CoronaVac jab donated from China. About this, as a Korean, I prefer AstraZeneca to CoronaVac jab if I compare only those two excluding other vaccines like vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna. 

According to the article, Coronavac jab is considered unsuitable to people who have more probability of facing the virus by Philipinos. 

Furthermore, people think Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, tries to weaken down the defense alliance between America and the Philippines by adopting China's CoronaVac jab vaccine. Therefore, attempting to increase the influence of China using the vaccines as the leverage.  

About the article, I agree with some parts of it but don't agree with other parts. 

Of course, AstraZeneca seems safer than CoronaVac since the United Kingdom is considered more advanced on biotechnology and the transparency surveillance of its development process. But, I think the article tries to advocate AstraZeneca too much since the Economist is the press of the U.K by comparing with the CoronaVac. 

When reading the article, I felt like that article wants to say Philippinos wants AstraZeneca than any other vaccines. However, even though I didn't search for the official data, people likely to prefer Pfizer or Moderna. Since it is considered to have fewer negative side effects and a higher antibody-producing percentage. Comparing AstraZeneca with Pfizer, AstraZeneca's antibody-producing percentage is about 70% and Pfizer is about 95%. Also, AstraZeneca is not recommended for people older than 65 in many countries. Furthermore, I heard that Austria's government temporarily stopped using the AstraZeneca vaccine. 

So, I'm worrying that this article tries to promote the AstraZeneca vaccine by comparing it with the CoronaVac, the less trusted vaccine. 

Of course, I think the AstraZeneca vaccine is great and saving many people.

Since it's cheap and easy to storage. 

Also, it's better than not using it and I think it's still trustworthy. But, I read many negative reviews and articles about the AstraZeneca vaccine. 

Therefore, I hope people should have a balanced view and insights on this article and vaccine. 

I hope people and researchers can choose the best option for themselves. 

Thanks.