Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Dual flu-covid nasal vaccine in Hong Kong

One more vaccine is being developed and tested in Hong Kong and Mainland China, according to the news. It is a collaboration between the University of Hong Kong, Xiamen University and Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy. Sources:

• "China's nasal spray coronavirus vaccine set for clinical trials". Global Times. 2020-09-10.
• "Dual flu-covid nasal spray vaccine to start trial in Hong Kong". Bangkok Post. 2020-10-09.
• "Inhaled vaccines under development in Hong Kong aim to fight coronavirus at its point of attack". SCMP. 2020-10-12.

EpiVacCorona has actually received EUA in Russia back in 2020

EpiVacCorona has actually received EUA approval in Russia back in 2020 so ideally should be moved in to registered vaccines section. Couple of days ago I tried to modify the development section for EpiVacCorona to include information on phase III trials but my changes were retracted due to TASS being unreliable source. Anyway if someone would be willing to make some information search and update of the wikipage that could help:

- The EpiVacCorona received EUA in Russia on October 13, 2020 (registration № ЛП-006504) as stated on Rospotrebnadzor website https://www.rospotrebnadzor.ru/region/rss/rss.php?ELEMENT_ID=15660 The page says that registration is issued based on clinical trials and also says that post-registration trials should involve 40,000 people (is it something like stage III trials?).

- TASS says (https://tass.com/society/1227405) that Russia’s EpiVacCorona vaccine delivered to 9 medical centers for post-registration trials. So the (phase III?) trials started in November 2020, but TASS says it will involve 30,000 people, not 40,000 people as stated by Rospotrebnadzor. This arcticle also confirms that the vaccine is already registered in Russia.

-Tass also issued an article that mass vaccination with EpiVacCorona in Russia to start in 2021. https://tass.com/society/1228675 and includes some updates on the post-clinical trials. One more article from TASS is with update on EpiVacCorona post clinical trials https://tass.com/society/1235115 RBC (reliable source but on Russian) article https://www.rbc.ru/society/30/12/2020/5fec105c9a79471085b71f83 says that EpiVac Corona will be available for general public in Russia in 1st quarter 2021. Interfax issues an arctile that Russia has submitted EpiVacCorona vaccine documents to WHO https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/70566/

So to sum up. The information for EpiVacCorona should clearly be updated since now it is significantly outdated, but maybe someone could do a better search and find more reliable sources to state as refs. Because now it is either TASS/RT or Russian language articles. Yarscat (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Map needs to be updated

Numberguy6 the File:COVID-19 vaccine map.svg needs to be updated. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 14:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

Pinging @Canuckguy and MSG17: for help. — Amkgp 💬 15:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I read in a newspaper that El Salvador has approved Oxford vaccine. --159.253.231.34 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

159.253.231.34  Added with Reuters ref— Amkgp 💬 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antondimak: can you please update the color of India and others (if there is a new country). Thank you — Amkgp 💬 18:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination chart

This template is used in §COVID-19_vaccine#Deployment.

Axelcabrera100 added a great bar chart based on data published by Our World in Data. The chart is featured in COVID-19 vaccine § Deployment but it may make a nice addition in the vaccine section of COVID-19 pandemic as well if this can be templated and fit in a scrollbox. Additionally, it would be helpful if the latest revision date and world total could be templated for inclusion in the body text.

COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 2 Jan 2021

Country	Doses administered (% of population)
World	9,980,000(0.13%)
China	4,500,000(3%)
United States	2,790,000(1%)
United Kingdom	1,000,000(1.5%)
Israel	1,000,000(10%)
Germany	188,553(0.2%)
Canada	108,553(1%)
Bahrain	60,097
Italy	52,037(0.1%)
Russia	52,000(0.05%)
"Production Statistics". github.com/owid/covid-19-data.

@Sdkb, Yug, Admanny, Dudley Miles, Waddie96, and Timeshifter: for template expert input.

- Wikmoz (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, Thank Wikmoz for the ping. It could be relevant to add the countries' population and/or the ratio of the national population vaccinated so far. I added some percentages as a demo. Yug (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point. There will definitely interest in vaccination totals as a % of country population. OWID publishes this data as well. Ideally, this could be neatly incorporated into the same table... just a columm with a % value, no bar. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you did it! - Wikmoz (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I like this world map of vaccination rates, and uploaded it to the commons:

• https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita?stackMode=absolute&region=World - For a table of the latest rate numbers by available country go to the table tab.

I prefer the png version (the top map). Vs the SVG version below it. Though both maps are crisp and sharp all the way up to very large sizes, part of the map date on the SVG version is obscured.

Commons:File:World map of COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people by country or territory.png

Commons:File:World map of COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people by country or territory.svg

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Will this automatically update every day? - Wikmoz (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they do updates around every day there. As for here... :) --Timeshifter (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb, Tenryuu, and Timeshifter: Editors have started to manually update individual countries, which is not ideal.. the current world total is off by 30%. I was about to post a support request at Wikipedia:Requested templates but want to check in to verify that Github is the right data source (vs. somehow routing through Wikidata) and that this is generally a worthwhile endeavor. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikmoz, this is the first I'm hearing of this template, so let me see if I understand this: you say Editors have started to manually update individual countries, which is not ideal, which suggests that the country numbers are automated in some way and takes data from Our World in Data. How should the data for the bar graph be updated ideally? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The data are published by OWID on GitHub: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/tree/master/public/data/vaccinations

The 'vaccinations.csv' file includes daily data and totals. There's also a JSON endpoint. I'm not sure of the methods normally used for automating data retreival.

Ideally, the chart would be moved to Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Vaccinations or Template:COVID-19_vaccination_data so we could transclude it eslewhere. Then the global total could be made available to include in the article body text as a variable (as Waddie96 did with Template:Cases_in_the_COVID-19_pandemic) for use in a number of COVID-19 topics.

Not sure if this is doable or exactly how to go about doing it. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow... was surprised to see Template:COVID-19_vaccination_data as a blue link instead of a red one. It looks like RScheiber had already done it! RScheiber, is there a safe way we can control the width and display in a scrollbox when transcluding? Please also note Yug's suggested modification to the above chart incorporating the % of population vaccinated. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help improving the template, i did a crude mash out of the pandemic data templates and the vaccination bar chart. Wikmoz: I had a scroll bar in the template but it completely broke the layout when transcluding the right-aligned bar-chart template. If anyone can add that fine - but i think as long as the list is so short this is optional.--RScheiber (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha and thank you for putting this together! RScheiber, What is the process for updating the data? @Sdkb, Tenryuu, and Yug: I think the inability to add a scroll bar is going to be problematic as additional countries are added. As much as I like the bar visuals, it may be worth biting the bullet and switching over to Template:Wikitable. Could piggyback off the code in Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates. This would allow for two sortable columns (total, and % of population). - Wikmoz (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I'll do some research over the next days if i can re-add the scrollbar without wrecking the general layout. I prefer the bar chart and it would be a pity to loose it.--RScheiber (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings; I'm commenting here to acknowledge them, but I'm too burnt out to engage further. I've tried for months to push for centralization of our COVID-19 data at hubs like Commons and Wikidata that are built to handle it, bringing benefits like automation and multilingualism. It hasn't met with success, so I've given up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Sdkb: What do you think about putting this data into wikidata ? (anyhow data fits that project better) We then could make the template parse wikidata and create a bar chart (uncharted tech territory though). There are already some Infobox Templates in use that do parse wikidata. First we'd need a draft of a data model that seems advisable to us. - RScheiber (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RScheiber, that's what I've been seeking; if you're able to get it done, go for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RScheiber, any luck with the scrollbar? I think vaccination in the most populous countries (and world total) will limit the utility of the bar visual. That along with the inability to sort by % of population vaccinated is making me think Template:Wikitable may be the better approach. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Wikmoz: Soon the large numbers (particularly of the whole world) will detract from the visuals. It is also harder to see what this really means in terms of real progress. The doses per 100 population is more comparable to how countries are really doing in protecting their populations (and the world), as per 1st table at the Ourworldindata source. I think it should switch to that or at least have it as an option. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've converted to a wikitable and figured out a method to automatically build the table in Excel. I think this is the way to go. I'll update later today. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed solution at Template talk:COVID-19 vaccination data. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Revised the proposed solution to focus on counts of the first dose only. Update steps have been simplified. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Medicago Inc.

I was wondering why Medicago Inc. is not included in the candidates here. It is a Quebec City based company which has a vaccine in Phase II trials of which the Canadian government has pre-ordered up to 76 million doses for [1]. Not sure if I might've missed something on who/what gets included on the candidate list. If there's no objection I'll add it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Medicago's candidate CoVLP had been tracked and revised as trial progress occurred over several months, but the entry was deleted in a move edit by Amkgp on 2 January. Restored to the candidates table. Zefr (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Trial design / side effects

Hello, should there be some mention of:

• this BMJ article, re the trials: "None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus."
• these initial CDC numbers (slide 6)? c.3% (temporary) debilitation? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Supply Chain - sortable table to show manufacturing capacity for each vaccine by country of manufacture

I have been trying to determine:

1. which countries have approved vaccines, are close to doing so and/or have started vaccinating
2. which countries are manufacturing vaccines and/or are preparing to do so

Something like this:

CoViD-19 Supply Chain

Country	Pfizer-BioNTech	Moderna	AstraZeneca/Oxford	J&J	Sanofi/GSK	Sputnik V	Covaxin
USA	11	22	33	44	55	66	77
India
China
Russia
Belgium
UK

I am sure that there are others who have greater knowledge who would like to take this on...
Enquire (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I suggest against it, within the EU it would start looking really unbalanced (unless you group the EU as an entity vs individual countries). Considering long term (...mid-2021) alot more vaccines will be approved, you may end up with about 20 columns. I suggest instead to append one column next to approved vaccines next to the row on approvals and just list manufacturing capacities by country. Albertaont (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend against this. Not sure how relevant these data are to the average reader and it seems like it will be exhausting to maintain. If there's interest, perhaps we could note the global distribution number to the summary paragraph for each vaccine in the table. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Biontech vacccine storing temperature

Paragraph 7.3 states that "the Pfizer-BioNTech RNA candidate requires storage between −80 and −60 °C (−112 and −76 °F),[104] or colder throughout deployment until vaccination."

However, the EMA data sheet clearly states in paragraph 6.3, "shelf life": "Unopened vial: 6 months at -90 °C to -60 °C’. Once removed from the freezer, the unopened vaccine can be stored for up to 5 days at 2 °C to 8 °C, and up to 2 hours at temperatures up to 30 °C, prior to use."

Contrary to the statement in 7.3, the final part of the cold chain for the Biontech vaccine can be conveniently realized with standard methods.

--Fsb9 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Covaxin Approval

I request you to add either of the two words or both, that the Covaxin developed by Bharat Biotech has got "Monitored Emergency Approval" or "Emergency Approval in Clinical trial mode" this means All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial and remove the word "restricted". This has been made official by the Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Minister of Health and family welfare, India on Twitter. Arjunuws (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done — Amkgp 💬 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not WP:HTBAE behavior

@Albertaont: First you reverted my edits [2]. After I corrected and improved the material [3], you reverted again by removing the sources [4]. After I added new sources [5] and reminded you to add next time, you reverted again [6] by completely deleting this part of my contributions.

Persistently removing materials and sources without any attempt to add new sources, materials or showing any acknowledgment of WP:PRESERVE. This is not WP:HTBAE behavior. Normchou ^💬 02:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with User:Albertaont on this one. When you're citing to scientific findings, especially statistics, it's important to precisely and accurately repeat the conclusions in the cited sources, and not try to summarize them at a too high level of abstraction (in this case, trying to paraphrase them as collectively showing efficacy over 90%). What User:Albertaont is getting at is that you need to either repeat the exact efficacy numbers for each vaccine at the cost of being more wordy (vaccine X has A%, vaccine Y has B%) (leaving it up to the reader to draw their own inferences about mRNA vaccines as a whole), or find a reliable source that does that analysis for you and expressly concludes that the mRNA vaccines as a category are showing efficacy at over 90%. Without a reliable source that does that meta-analysis, you're improperly using Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research and that means your edits are crashing into WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's now clearly stated in the opening paragraph that the FDA and EMA set 50% efficacy as the minimum required for approval. 67% is referenced as necessary to achieve herd immunity. So the context is made clear to the reader. But this isn't a pass/fail situation. The specific efficacy number is very important. Both to the person receiving the vaccine and to the general population as it impacts the number of people who must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

remove NIH and NEJM, can't use primary sources WP:MEDRS

I can see a weak argument for disqualifying all of NIH based on BARDA funding but what is the argument for removing NEJM?

What Albertaont is getting at is that you need to either repeat the exact efficacy numbers for each vaccine at the cost of being more wordy (vaccine X has A%, vaccine Y has B%) (leaving it up to the reader to draw their own inferences about mRNA vaccines as a whole), or find a reliable source that does that analysis for you and expressly concludes that the mRNA vaccines as a category are showing efficacy at over 90%. Without a reliable source that does that meta-analysis, you're improperly using Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research and that means your edits are crashing into WP:NOR.

Disagree here. There is an editorial argument to be made against this grouping, which was made but I see no guideline violation. There's no original research or WP:SYNTH involved in the WP:CALC necessary to group a set based on a numeric range. The editor made no representation that the grouping was particularly meaningful (either by type of vaccine or range). If the grouping seems arbitrary or unecessary then there's an editorial argument to be made against it but per WP:BLUE it's not something that is a WP:RS requirement. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

UK Moderna Approval

The Authorized and Approved vaccines table needs updated to reflect UK approval of the Moderna Vaccine as per the MHRA "Moderna vaccine becomes third COVID-19 vaccine approved by UK regulator". UK MHRA. 2021-01-08. 81.108.103.11 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I have just done this but will now add this better reference. Cheers. --Crep1711 (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

clinical trial

Please update this clover source, arcturus source, and anges source. 120.29.113.94 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

MRNA 1273 (Moderna) & Tozinameran (Pfizer) Suppress Symptoms AZD1222 (Oxford AstraZeneca) Prevents Actual Infection?

Please bear with me, I’m not a medical professional nor trained in genomic’s; however, does the article lay out the facts that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines suppress symptoms while the Oxford vaccine prevents actual infection anywhere? The reason I ask is, I noticed that the descriptions of Mrna 1273 and Tozinameran vaccines are very careful to state that they “prevent illness“ I cannot find anywhere a source that states the two vaccines prevent infection. Here is a briefing that can explain my query far better than I can. The distinction is extremely important and if it is not mentioned in the article I believe it should be and given priority.Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What you're describing is a difference in primary trial endpoints. It does not indicate that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines "suppress symptoms" while the AstraZenica vaccine prevents infection. Merely, it indicates that asymptomatic infections were quantifiable in one study and not yet quantified in the other studies. The primary endpoint for Moderna and Pfizer were how many trial participants developed symptomatic infection confirmed by a postive PCR test. For the AZ trial, some participants also submitted weekly nose swaps to check for asymptomatic infections. So AZ can quantify asymptomatic infections, where Moderna and Pfizer cannot. However, Moderna and Pfizer do have serology testing as a second endpoint to retrospectively check for asymptomatic infections. These data just aren't available yet. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pfizer

Please update the table as UAE and Bahrain are giving the Pfizer jab to any resident that applies for it, so it's full authorization not EUA. --193.188.126.164 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand what EUA means. It does not mean that who gets it is restricted. It means that the authorization is conditional, that is, it could be withdrawn if: (1) the emergency (pandemic) ends, (2) the vaccine turns out to be more dangerous or less effective than believed, or (3) a superior vaccine (available in sufficient quantity) is approved. See here. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

EpiVacCorona (citations are in Russian)

Russia claims that EpiVacCorona is registered in October 2020

https://rg.ru/2020/10/14/putin-obiavil-o-registracii-v-rf-vtoroj-vakciny-ot-covid-19.html

and today vaccination has been started.

https://www.vzsar.ru/news/2021/01/12/pandemiya-v-saratovskyu-oblast-postypila-pervaya-partiya-vakciny-epivakkorona.html

--Anatoliy (Talk) 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian-language footnotes made visible so non-Russian speakers or those leery of ".ru" URLs can be warned (and the footnotes appeared at the bottom of the whole talk page, not this entry. Ocdcntx (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Demagogic plutophobic affirmation

"By December, more than 10 billion vaccine doses had been preordered by countries, with about half of the doses purchased by high-income countries comprising only 14% of the world's population."

And comprising how many of the total cases and deaths?81.202.238.193 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would benefit from discussion of game-changing British, South African, and Brazilian, and mink-farmer variants

Current few lines on

SARS-CoV-2 variant

fail to capture how the picture has changed since mid-December.

Variant discussion should address concerns about vaccine escape

Variant discussion should address concerns about vaccine escape

Ocdcntx (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Priority

I'd like a discussion of how countries choose the priority groups to vaccinate. --Error (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen discussion of what the groups are (which varies from place to place), but not discussion of why they were selected aside from occasional platitudes about "equity" or "protecting the vulnerable".

Personally, I think that it is a raw exercise of political power at the expense of the good. Rational (i.e. Objectivist) ethics would require that the distribution be left to the discretion of the manufacturers of the vaccine. And that they should distribute it so as to maximize their ability to continue to produce it, i.e. first give it to their own employees and the employees of firms in their supply chain to protect them, and then sell it at the highest possible price to make more profit which could be plowed back into producing more vaccine. As those most willing and able to pay are vaccinated and more vaccine is produced, the price would come down so that unvaccinated people could afford to buy it. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer a discussion of how actual countries choose rather than a objectivist preaching. --Error (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For the official line from CDC, see "When Vaccine is Limited, Who Should Get Vaccinated First?". JRSpriggs (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

CDC mentions three goals: (1) Decrease death and serious disease as much as possible. (2) Preserve functioning of society. (3) Reduce the extra burden COVID-19 is having on people already facing disparities.

Death is inevitable for everyone, and the premature death of unfit individuals is a necessary part of the process of Darwinian evolution. Therefor the first goal is pointless.

Reducing disparities similarly runs against the inexorable forces of nature.

Preserving the functioning of society is just another way of saying keeping the economy running. This is indeed desirable, but consider how it can be measured. Any impairment of the economy is an increase in the cost of some economic process. The opportunity to reduce that cost (by vaccinating the workers performing that task) is an opportunity to make a profit and is best measured by how much the business is able to pay to achieve that goal. So selling vaccine to the highest bidder tends to maximize the functioning of the economy and preserve (so far as possible) the functioning of society. It also provides more resources to the production of the vaccine as is appropriate. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Split article

This article really needs to be split. The main information that this article should center is what the vaccines are, how they work, and where they are in the approval process. However, all the information about development and deployment of vaccines in general is crowding out information about the actual vaccines themselves. Readers have to get through a wall of text about what the WHO was doing last summer in order to get to the table of the actual vaccines, which has minimal information about each vaccine in a format that's hard for non-specialists to parse.

I propose splitting content into two new articles. Development of COVID-19 vaccines would get the current "Planning and investment" and "Development" sections, and Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines would get the "Deployment" and "Supply chain" sections; in each case a summary would be left here. This frees up space to have actual prose summary-style text about each of the vaccines in addition to the table, which should be easy since articles that have already been written about most of them. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel that COVID-19 vaccine is a good "head article" from which the individual vaccine articles can be accessed. I am not sure that we should therefore be splitting or expanding the prose in COVID-19 vaccine "head article", and would expect that over time, as the individual vaccine articles get developed, the head article will probably get reduced in size? Britishfinance (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why "Development" and "Vaccines development status" are separate sections? I think it should be fine to merge the two sections together and rearrange/rewrite the section so that the table is one of the first elements of the section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The second section was just renamed from 'Vaccines'. I've reverted the edit. I think we can keep the distinct as the first focuses on development, the second focuses on individual vaccines and their efficacy. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The topic currently includes a lot of content that is not well maintained and redundant. There are a lot of opportunities to cut excessive detail. There are other sections that can be reduced or consolidated. I think you're right that there may be an opportunity here to split out one of the larger sections but hoping that we can first tackle the content quality and maintenance issues.

• COVID-19 vaccine § Planning and investment includes 12 paragraphs that are transcluded from Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. We could substantially reduce the transclusion.
• COVID-19 vaccine § Equitable access can be edited down.
• COVID-19 vaccine § Compressed timelines can probably be merged into other subheadings.
• COVID-19 vaccine § National governments really needs a more up to date description of Operation Warp Speed.

- Wikmoz (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Yes, the transclusions of multiple sections are an obvious cut and I've removed all but the lead section. I agree with your other changes, but they don't add up to a lot of reduction. At 67k of readable prose, this article is just at the point where a split starts to be recommended, but despite that it discusses everything in detail but the vaccines themselves. But honestly, most of the information already here does seem encyclopedic and reasonably organized to me. I don't think we'd be able to make much more room unless we're willing to WP:TNT entire sections, which I don't think we should do. And I've found that splitting long articles actually makes them easier to improve and maintain, since the shorter articles are easier to work with.

@Britishfinance: Most of the information in this article is about the vaccine development and deployment process in general. Individual vaccine articles wouldn't contain the same information, so it wouldn't be expected that the information would migrate out of this article over time.

@Tenryuu: I agree the table should be placed earlier in the article, but we do need separate sections for "what the vaccines are" and "who funded the development and when". I'd also like to get away from a timeline/proseline format, and towards a format broken down by mechanism. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Licensure section

The COVID-19 vaccine § Licensure section contains a level of background information on vaccine licensure that may be beyond what is necessary in this topic. Any thoughts on moving a portion of this section into a new section within Vaccine? We could then include a 'Further reading' link to that section. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather than trimming it, I'd like to see the section expanded. There's considerable misunderstanding among editors about 1) interim results from an ongoing multiyear Phase III trial being a conclusion of and end to the trial (which will continue for years - for all the vaccines with preliminary evidence of safety and efficacy), and 2) emergency use authorization being a final step equal to vaccine approval and licensure (EUA is an interim, temporary marketing status). The COVID-19 vaccine article is a template for the whole vaccine process, which has a logical endpoint with licensure. To be encyclopedic for the article, we need more attention to this section, not less. Zefr (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this concern can still be addressed by two or three succinct sentences explaining licensure and how it differs from an EUA. The non-COVID-19 content could still be moveed to a new section, Vaccine § Licensure. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Update the map

Vaccination begins in India Nitesh003 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Amkgp 💬 16:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Norway investigates 23 deaths after Pfizer (BBNT162b2) vaccination

BMJ source, China health experts call on international community to halt rollout of mRNA vaccines. Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's probably just a coincidence. Either way it's too recent for inclusion. We should wait for a review. Graham Beards (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the China Global Times article is not useable on Wikipedia per WP:RS/P, and is very likely propaganda from the CCP against the Pfizer vaccines (as they seem to be better than the Chinese version). The Norway story was also picked up in Bloomberg (a high-quality RS and not prone to sensationalism given its position as a major financial news source) with Norway Raises Concern Over Vaccine Jabs for the Elderly. I have asked on Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Norway experience for people over 80-years old whether this story is at a stage to be useable (Pfizer is still looking into it, and it is not a given that the deaths were from the vaccine)? Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Like Britishfinance, I strongly discourage relying on the Global Times. The cause is still under investigation, so we should keep an eye on the story as it develops further. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the BMJ is a highly respectable journal or do you mean we should wait on secondary sources? If so, the Norwegian gov has a few reliable sources.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from the BMJ article: "There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”. As I stated in the vaccine article talk page [7] WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS apply (especially with medical claims). We need much better sourcing and not vague "investigations" with such a crucial topic. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link and the guidance.Roland Of Yew (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing link to DNA vaccine

Starting from the issue in german wikipedia, I'm really surprised that even in en:wikipedia there seems to be an issue with using the term DNA vaccine. The term is nearly completely missing on this page (and others), despite the fact that important adenovirus-based vector-vaccines (AZD1222, Gam-COVID-Vac) are indeed of course DNA vaccines! It does not matter if the vector is a plasmid or a virus, it does matter, if DNA is injected into the cell or not! Hope this (in my opinion strong) issue can be fixed, however, due to the fact that I'm not a native english speaker, I would not be the best author for that. Thanks a lot! --Max schwalbe (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)