Jump to content

Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Just bad: new section
No edit summary
Line 68: Line 68:


It's widely known (as of Oct 2022) that covid vaccination does *NOT* prevent infection. The definition of 'effective' is squishy, but using the manufacturer's definition (found in some particular clinical trial or approval application) is not very useful. I read, a year or so ago, that the Oxford-AZ vaccine was less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA's at preventing DEATH. That's a pretty important end-point. But I don't know if the current data supports that. It is just bad editing to avoid discussion of the various things a vaccine might or should do: infection, symptoms, length of infection, severity of infection, long-term effects, hospitalization, permanent disability (including "long covid"), and death, as well as transmission. So, a thorough article would discuss what is known about ALL of these, while this article avoids discussion of most of them - restricting discussion to the results of clinical trials and mild-moderate disease. Just bad.[[Special:Contributions/174.130.71.156|174.130.71.156]] ([[User talk:174.130.71.156|talk]]) 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It's widely known (as of Oct 2022) that covid vaccination does *NOT* prevent infection. The definition of 'effective' is squishy, but using the manufacturer's definition (found in some particular clinical trial or approval application) is not very useful. I read, a year or so ago, that the Oxford-AZ vaccine was less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA's at preventing DEATH. That's a pretty important end-point. But I don't know if the current data supports that. It is just bad editing to avoid discussion of the various things a vaccine might or should do: infection, symptoms, length of infection, severity of infection, long-term effects, hospitalization, permanent disability (including "long covid"), and death, as well as transmission. So, a thorough article would discuss what is known about ALL of these, while this article avoids discussion of most of them - restricting discussion to the results of clinical trials and mild-moderate disease. Just bad.[[Special:Contributions/174.130.71.156|174.130.71.156]] ([[User talk:174.130.71.156|talk]]) 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

== Nanoparticles? ==
Does it use nanoparticles?

Revision as of 20:02, 4 November 2022


Efficacy rates don't match

The efficacy rates in the lede and the article don't match each other. If the data is from different sources, all the sources should be provided to avoid conflicting information. 202.8.114.83 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts To Undermine/Damage AZ Vaccine Reputation

We are starting to see articles published by reputable newspapers stating that France and the EU attempted to cause reputational damage to the Astrazeneca vaccine for geopolitical reasons. With this in mind, I think we need to add a new category describing these attempts. [1] Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does a opinion piece beyond a paywall really meets the standards for a source? Especially considering that the telegraph is one of the main drivers of the nationalistic frenzy surrounding the vaccine that emerged in the UK? 2A01:C22:7765:2400:B058:A30B:4F9D:D0F1 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This information is included in the first paragraph of section 7 (Society and culture), but it is presented in a very biased manner. In short, it blames the EU for all the problems that the AstraZeneca vaccine has faced. Other sources provide a more nuanced opinion/point of view, such as this one: [2]. This article points out the low blows of the EU towards AZ but also highlights the failures of the company itself that ultimately led to the rejection of AZ vaccine in some countries (for example, the errors made by AZ during the initial publication of the results of clinical trials). Furthermore, the court's initial ruling in the EU vs. AZ row said that "... AstraZeneca may have committed a serious breach of the contract by reserving Oxford BioMedica's output for the British market." [3]. The row between AZ and the EU has also been settled in September 2021 [4]. I believe that including these sources in section 7 would make the text more balanced. 2A02:8308:A085:D00:59D8:7CB5:BFA8:7884 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O would think that the heavy lift of this vaccine in terms of numbers vaccinated in the CoVax scheme is more notable that some of the specific in the current lede. In the end mRNA are likely to be the way to go but currently cost/risk/benefit of AZ for most people is very good. Its a while since I visited this article and it hasn't really "grown up" and there remains systemic bias in the article towards it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boytchev, Hristio (12 February 2021). " Why did a German newspaper insist the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was inefficacious for older people—without evidence?". British Medical Journal. Retrieved 8 October 2021.
  2. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/how-astrazeneca-threw-away-its-shot/
  3. ^ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/astrazeneca-says-eu-loses-legal-bid-more-vaccine-supplies-by-end-june-2021-06-18/
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58426880

Age

In April 2021 UK regulators stated people under 30 should look for alternative link: https://www.businessinsider.com/under-30s-shouldnt-take-astrazeneca-vaccine-uk-regulator-2021-4

However since then no information has been found regarding if they reversed or not Astrazeneca official website does not mention this issue but the european label says "18 and above" https://covid19.astrazeneca.com/ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-product-information_en.pdf

Protocol in Australia is confusing1ozieje (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: In Canada latest recommendation is Astrazeneca for people 18 and above link https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines-en.pdf 1ozieje (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness against symptomatic disease by Omicron: undue weight?

@Djm-leighpark: In this edit, information about a drop in effectiveness against Omicron was removed because the argument was considered unbalanced with respect to likely improved effectiveness against poor outcomes like hospitalization. To me, it is unquestionable that getting vaccinated, even without a booster shot, is likely to offer protection against hospitalization, but we don't have a report on the exact level of protection yet. We could, for example, cite the WHO update from 28 November[1] which broadly states that Current vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftrebien: It needs something like that to broadly give the balance; and the raw figures suggest AZ is of little value against Omicron; in practice it probably has some considerable effectiveness in reducing disease severity. ( I'm in the UK, we are in a significant Omicron wave and the data is being gathered about omicron infections and effectiveness vs. vaccination status ... ) So yes, I would accept that entry with that balancing comment, albeit a little vague until better information of the various effectiveness metrics come through, which will by its nature take a little time.23:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Update on Omicron". World Health Organization. 28 November 2021. Archived from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 30 November 2021.

Compensation payments

In the UK as at 24 June 2022, according to the BMJ, BBC and other reliable sources, the first compensation payments in the UK have been made to families who have been bereaved, or to people who have been injured, as a result of Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. As of 20 May 2022 1,681 claims on the UK compensation scheme are outstanding so this is going to be more and more newsworthy. Yet I see no mention of compensation payments. Should there not be a section for it?86.187.234.95 (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just bad

It's widely known (as of Oct 2022) that covid vaccination does *NOT* prevent infection. The definition of 'effective' is squishy, but using the manufacturer's definition (found in some particular clinical trial or approval application) is not very useful. I read, a year or so ago, that the Oxford-AZ vaccine was less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA's at preventing DEATH. That's a pretty important end-point. But I don't know if the current data supports that. It is just bad editing to avoid discussion of the various things a vaccine might or should do: infection, symptoms, length of infection, severity of infection, long-term effects, hospitalization, permanent disability (including "long covid"), and death, as well as transmission. So, a thorough article would discuss what is known about ALL of these, while this article avoids discussion of most of them - restricting discussion to the results of clinical trials and mild-moderate disease. Just bad.174.130.71.156 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoparticles?

Does it use nanoparticles?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=1120042350"