Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.1.232 (talk) at 01:28, 11 December 2020 (→‎update re Sputnik V). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 vaccine|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Unjustified Exclusion of Vaccine Candidates

Going through the WHO's "draft landscape of COVID-19 vaccine candidates" and the Milken Institute's vaccine tracker, which have been identified by several of those on this talk page as a reliable sources to cite re vaccine candidates, I noticed various candidates listed that are conspicuously absent on the list featured on this Wikipedia page. I think this exclusion of verified trials underway is problematic since it deprives readers of an understanding of the breadth of genuine COVID-19 vaccine development globally.

I will not list all of the candidates missing from the Wikipedia page's list, but featured by the WHO and Milken (as well as the New York Times and other media outlets), but will mention a few. Both the Milken Institute and WHO sources mention two vaccine candidates being developed by the Finlay Institute of Vaccines (IFV) in Cuba, currently undergoing early stage trials. These Trials have also been widely reported on in Cuban and international media and appear on the New York Times and the Guardian's trackers. As a result of their credible official documentation and the media coverage they have received, it seems important that IFV's candidates are included on the Wikipedia page list.

Just a few of the other well-documented candidates being similarly excluded from the Wikipedia page vaccine list are the Italian candidate by ReiThera/LEUKOCARE/Univercells, the Indian DNA vaccine candidate by Zydus Cadila (documented in WHO documents as "Cadila Healthcare Limited" and in Milken's list as "Zydus Cadila Healthcare Limited") and a candidate from Kazakhstan's Research Institute for Biological Safety Problems, QAZCOVID-IN®.

I request that editors of this page take a look at these candidates in the source material and add them to the list, so it is as representative of reasearch and development taking place as possible. Here are links to the WHO and Milken Institute's documentation: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines https://covid-19tracker.milkeninstitute.org/#home LimeTree172 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

update re Sputnik V

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/527361-russia-says-its-covid-19-vaccine-is-95-percent

  • New clinical trial data showed the vaccine was 91.4 percent effective on day 28 after the first dose and more than 95 percent effective 42 days later.
  • More than 22,000 volunteers have been vaccinated with the first dose and more than 19,000 volunteers with both doses.
  • Requests for more than 1.2 billion doses of the Sputnik V vaccine have come from more than 50 countries.
  • The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the country’s sovereign wealth fund that is bankrolling the country’s vaccine efforts, said vaccination would be free of charge for Russian citizens beginning next year and about $20 internationally, as Sputnik V is a two dose vaccine.
  • The vaccine supplies for the global market will be produced by RDIF’s international partners in India, China, South Korea, Brazil and other countries.

Humanengr (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original information about this Russian candidate is only a press release (from the organization financing the vaccine development - RDIF, and so may not be factual), and has not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal. We should wait for the publication. Further skepticism here. Zefr (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: What about this portion?

Russia's national research center conducting the trials on the Sputnik V vaccine hopes to publish the data from Phase 3 trials in an international medical journal following peer review. Russia's sovereign wealth fund that supports the country’s vaccine efforts said vaccination will begin next year free for Russian citizens and cost about $20 internationally for the two doses. Over 50 countries have requested over 1.2 billion doses of the vaccine. The vaccine will be produced in India, China, South Korea, Brazil and other countries.[1][2]

Humanengr (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Guzman, Joseph (2020-11-24). "Russia says its COVID-19 vaccine is 95 percent effective and will cost less than $20". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-11-26.
  2. ^ Ullah, Zahra (2020-11-24). "Sputnik V vaccine is 91.4% effective according to interim data, says Russia". cnn. Retrieved 2020-11-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Sounds like propaganda. Needs a MEDRS publication for the trial results and WP:V for any purchase commitments, manufacturing and distribution. Note the words "hopes" and "will" are marketing giveaways about an uncertain future outcome, WP:CRYSTAL. Zefr (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither BioNTech/Pfeizer, Moderna nor Oxford's/AstraZeneca vaccines phase III trial results had been published in peer-reviewed journals to date. The effectivity of these, and Gamaleya's vaccines had only been stated in public releases. All these announces should be treated equally in the article.Tom Paine (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is hilarious, but totally consistent with Wikipedia's role as a megaphone for neocons, that the first vaccinations in Russia are relegated to a footnote, while the British vaccination is proclaimed as a major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.45.254 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because all credible news sources are holding off on reporting on that vaccine as genuinely credible, in the absence of peer-review, given Russia's history of non-credibility and lack of accountability?Mos2011 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Anon, but Wiki is hardly a conservative place - quite the opposite; however, the Russian Federation is NOT a democracy, the Putin regime runs in secret from the public and murders opponents, the press is controlled by the government - anything stated without proper validation must be taken with several kilotons of extreme caution. - HammerFimFan

Request for Addition of Citations

I would like citations added to the Bharat Biotech vaccine candidate (BBV152) that is currently on the list of candidates, but lacking citations.

One of the citations is official documentation of the candidate's phase three trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04641481?term=vaccine&cond=Covid19&cntry=IN&draw=2&rank=2

there is also documentation of its status in the New York Times COVID vaccine tracker https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

further, there are news articles documenting the commencement of the the phase three trials: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-s-first-covid-19-vaccine-covaxin-phase-3-trial-begins-at-aiims-key-updates-11606389911232.html LimeTree172 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting it, but I did add the first link as one of the citations when I inserted Bharat Biotech's vaccine into the table, and I discovered the trial from the NYT vaccine tracker, so I don't think it's necessary to add any additional sources. Bill Williams (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updates Re: Lunar-COV19/ARCT-021

HzgiUU149377 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine candidates table > BNT162b2 interim analysis results?

Why doesn't BNT162b2 include a sentence like "Positive results from an interim analysis were announced on 9 November 2020.", similar to AZD1222 and mRNA-1273? This seems odd as they were actually the first to make such an announcement.. --Benimation (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be there. I tried to do it but it broke formatting badly... not sure why. I tried in several different ways but it may be a bug in the visual editor. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it should be there, but for the sake of consistency with Moderna and Astra-Zeneca and to avoid bias, I can put it in this weekend if there are no objections. Albertaont (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its done, although I am not against someone removing it again so long as it is removed from the other vaccines as well. Albertaont (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed claim that adjuvants enable evolution of viral escape

I removed two sentences from the bottom of the paragraph about adjuvants because they were unsupported by their citations. They claim that adjuvants are associated with viral escape from vaccine efficacy due to evolution of the virus. Neither cited source makes such claims, and I have never seen such a claim although I have read a fair amount about adjuvants, including Adjuvant.

One of the citing sources, Tregoning, even speculates to the contrary: "One application of adjuvants could be to stabilise structures that expose the stem region without the head domain." [thereby moving towards] a "‘universal flu vaccine’ ... that covers all current and future strain variations."

It is relevant to note that a phrase I removed, "making the adjuvant-vaccine compound misdesigned" [Revision as of 22:15, 24 August 2020], previously was "making the adjuvant-vaccine technology protective" [19:51, 24 August 2020], an antithesis of the claim I removed. C4dn (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. based article?

Should there be a U.S. based article about vaccine and distribution? There is lots of news about California getting vaccine mid December and Texas governor saying "days" for vaccine. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fit for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please add to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as suggestd above. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial trial completed

The reference backs up the text. Reverting to text with out a reference is a no-no. Stating that status is interim, does not negate that initial trial is complete. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"94 cases of COVID-19 among 43,538 trial participants." "The trial will continue until a total of 164 COVID-19 cases are detected, so initial estimates of the vaccine’s effectiveness could change." The official upcoming event will be whether the European Medicines Agency and FDA grant EUA, but those decisions are based on interim results, not the conclusion of the Phase III trials in Europe and the US. Zefr (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, initial trial completion, does not mean final trial completion and the text already states that testing is continuing. Please stop your disruptive editing and reverting to text without a reference. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "initial trial completion", but rather an "interim analysis" has been reported. The content and source you added are misleading, resulting from your (and IndustryWeek's - not an authoritative source for clinical trials) misunderstanding of what is a press release on interim results, and what is a concluded Phase III trial (producing complete results on several vaccine outcomes), which will eventually be peer-reviewed and published in a medical journal. See here for various expert interpretations based on the Pfizer 9 Nov announcement of interim results. It is an error to state that the Pfizer trial is "completed". You should admit your mistake, revise the content in the article, and delete the IndustryWeek source which is a non-expert interpretation - there are better sources. Zefr (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Alexbrn and Zefr. The press releases are merely interim readouts in the middle of ongoing Phase III clinical trials. It looks like User:Daniel.Cardenas has stumbled into an unknown unknown situation -- that is, you don't know what you don't know. This is a situation which college-level critical thinking courses specifically teach students to be alert for and to guard against (yes, I took one). The principled approach is to recognize when one has strayed outside of one's area of expertise and back down. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Won't EUA invalidate the remainder of phase III?

Assuming these vaccines get emergency use authorization, it seems likely to me that some of the participants in the trials will get one of the vaccines outside of the trials. Would this not invalidate the remainder of the phase three trials? JRSpriggs (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a 3-part query: 1) an EUA allows marketing of a vaccine before all Phase III evidence is in because of the existing and growing disease emergency, as exists now. The final approval step for a vaccine is international licensure, which would not be issued until articles on Phase III results are published and international scientific organizations like WHO give approval on the whole clinical research package, discussed in the article here. Think of the challenging issues for immunizing children in rural parts of developing countries: long-term evidence of safety and efficacy is needed. 2) Phase III trials on thousands of participants for each vaccine candidate need to continue for years to answer many questions unsolved at present: duration of immunity, need for booster shots, effect on disease severity, age and race differences, comparative efficacy of different technologies et al. (see varied critiques). 3) trial participants would have signed a mutual agreement with the trial sponsor on conditions for leaving the trial early. I think non-compliant volunteers choosing to receive a different vaccine would just be dropped out of long-term observation in a trial. Zefr (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 1: status of Pfizer-BioNTech Phase III trials

This revert was necessary because the Phase III trials in Europe and the US are far from completed, but rather an interim analysis was done, enabling application for an EUA in late November in the EU, USA, and Canada. Phase III trials don't conclude when an interim analysis is conducted (despite the excessive enthusiasm in news reports) - vaccine Phase III trials last for years, and the Pfizer-BioNTech trial in the US, which began in April, will continue until early 2023. For the article, it will be necessary to distinguish between an interim analysis and the ongoing Phase III trials for Pfizer, Moderna, and other manufacturers seeking an EUA. Zefr (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert was disruptive editing and above text does not negate that initial trial has completed in the U.S. The reference provided backs up the text and text does not state completed but to the contrary that testing is continuing. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK approval

U.K. Approves Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine, a First in the West https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/world/europe/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-approved-uk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B00E:9EFD:94BA:820D:A0FC:D13A (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/dec/02/coronavirus-live-news-cdc-suggests-first-vaccines-to-us-healthcare-workers-england-emerges-from-lockdown

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/02/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-wins-licence-for-use-in-the-uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B00E:9EFD:94BA:820D:A0FC:D13A (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZyCoV-D vaccine candidate

Can anyone add ZyCoV-D being developed by Cadila Healthcare to COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_candidates. Please find the resources below

Thank you — Amkgp 💬 12:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness / Efficacy — explicit & careful definition required

Effectiveness & efficacy need to be more explicitly defined so that it will be clear to the reader at each usage which of the following is intended:

  • percentage of vaccine recipients who are not infected when exposed to the virus; or
  • percentage of vaccine recipients who do not become ill / do not develop symptoms / do not acquire the disease (at least, not severely) when exposed to the virus.

The following statement in the article is almost useless:
"The effectiveness of new vaccine is defined by its efficacy.[94]"
It is like saying, "The colour is defined as the coloration."

And the implications of the following statement in the article depends a lot on which definition is applied:
"An efficacy of less than 60% may result in failure to create herd immunity.[14][219]"

—DIV (137.111.13.51 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Canada

There is no such thing as an EUA in Canada. However, Health Canada is currently reviewing 4 vaccines candidates, not just BioNTech/Pfizer's. All 4 vaccines should be listed in the same state (pending), even though BioNTech/Pfizer's will likely be approved first. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/authorization/applications.html --zorxd (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Just after I wrote that, Health Canada approved a first vaccine. --zorxd (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the marketing authorization on 9 December 2020 by Health Canada, and is based on interim analysis of an ongoing multinational Phase III trial. It states: "There is no vaccine authorized for the prevention of COVID-19 in Canada." Various editors are hung up on the term emergency use authorization (EUA) which has different names among various countries (UK: "emergency authorisation", Canada: "interim approval order"), but all are essentially the same EUA condition: temporary marketing approval to address the COVID-19 emergency, with ongoing surveillance of data from the Phase III trial, pending final vaccine approval and licensure at an unknown future date, if the vaccine proves in the final clinical research package to be safe and effective. Zefr (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, according to Canadian news outlets, the Pfizer vaccine has been approved (source: Here and Here) . Please update the information and the map. Jack72 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Update here is an official government source regarding the approval: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/12/health-canada-authorizes-first-covid-19-vaccine0.html Jack72 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the horse's mouth: In order to facilitate timely access to promising COVID-19 drugs, the Interim Order introduces a mechanism for the Minister to allow the importation of promising COVID-19 drugs for placement in Canadian facilities prior to their market authorization in Canada, referred to as pre-positioning. This mechanism may be used to import a promising COVID-19 drug into Canada if the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has notified the Minister of a need to pre-position a COVID-19 drug and the Government of Canada has a procurement agreement for the purchase of the drug. In addition, the manufacturer of the drug must have filed an application for market authorization with Health Canada under the Interim Order or the Food and Drug Regulations, or filed an application for market authorization with a foreign regulatory authority. [1]. Please read the rest of the link for more details. Regardless of headline wording in other sources, it's pretty much an EUA equivalent. Adrian two (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off deployment?

In the coming months, I imagine that there will be enough coverage and content regarding the progress, methodology, and logistics of mass-deployment of the vaccines that we'll want to have an article specifically covering the rollout, separate from the broader article on the vaccines themselves. This will also help bring this article down to a more readable size, by trimming and pointing with a "Main article" link. (It's currently rather above the recommended article length.) Things to figure out:

  • Title: COVID-19 vaccine deployment, COVID-19 vaccine rollout?
  • Which sections of this article (COVID-19 vaccine) should be considered under that topic, and thus trimmed here and described more fully there? Certainly the #Supply_chain section and probably most or all of #Commercialization_and_equitable_access, and perhaps part of #Partnerships,_competition,_and_distribution, I think.

Thoughts on this? --Yair rand (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid secluding this content to a very deep sub-article why not treat this in the COVID-19 pandemic article? Vaccine deployment is the major way in which countries are responding to the epidemic so it is well within the scope of that page. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=993520172"