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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Listen, are we gonna list on the table all the countries that have approved the vaccine? Let's just list important countries or international organizations (EU, USA, China), and leave the rest (Canada et al.) for the map.81.202.238.193 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mass vaccination underway" is seriously misleading and false. Canada has something like 3,000 doses and two doses per candidate. That means less than 0.1% are actually getting vaccines as we speak. Yes it will ramp up but right now it is not mass vaccinations even based on its small population Kav2001c (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

Section duplication

It looks like there are three sections with overlapping content...

• COVID-19 vaccine § Partnerships, competition, and distribution
• COVID-19 vaccine § Global development
• COVID-19 vaccine § COVID-19 vaccine development in 2020

Can someone help reorganize under better headings and consolidate duplicate content? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Took a pass at reorganizing along development phases. Will surely require more work but I think it's a step in the right direction. The content sequence is more logical and provides a clearer drilldown for mobile TOC users...

Before

1. Synopsis and history
2. Global development
3. WHO COVID-19 trials
4. Partnerships, competition, and distribution
5. Compressed timelines
6. Technology platforms
7. Vaccines
8. Potential limitations
9. Proposed challenge studies
10. Authorizations
11. Equitable access
12. Licensure
13. Commercialization
14. Supply chain
15. Liability
16. Misinformation
17. Society and culture

After

1. Planning and investment
2. Compressed timelines
3. Development
4. Trials
5. Vaccines
6. Potential limitations
7. Authorizations
8. Licensure
9. Deployment
10. Supply chain
11. Liability

Wikmoz (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Split "mass vaccination underway or planned" categories in the map and table

@MSG17, Halil marx07, and Jrcraft Yt: I think most readers will first and mostly want to know where vaccination has already begun. This is the most important status as it shows which countries are already potentially saving lives thanks to their boldness or logistical preparedness. I think Russia and the UK are the only ones in such category. I propose these preliminary categories for the map:

  Approved for general use, mass vaccination underway

  EUA granted, mass vaccination underway

  EUA granted, limited vaccination

  Approved for general use, mass vaccination planned

  EUA granted, mass vaccination planned

  EUA pending

The table could have an extra column Vaccination with Mass and Limited subcategories in the cells. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed color scheme would be interesting. I wonder what should be done from countries that, as far as I know, don't have a EUA for any vaccine yet but have announced plans for authorization and mass vaccination (Morocco and Israel). On the other hand, it might not be a good idea to add more columns to the table at this point, although I see you have proposed splitting the trial related ones. MSG17 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the category you are wondering about is worth including as it is the least impactful. Furthermore, it would be harder to track which countries have such plans as it's kinda "all talk". By the way, I'm not sure if the orange variants fit the best with the categories trend. I didn't change them because I wanted to make a minimalistic first proposition. I think we should reassess them. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

True, true. I think it would still be useful to keep track of which countries have given a EUA but not rolled out the vaccine on a mass scale, if that's what you mean by the "orange variants". The EUA pending, as a category that is also in a similar position of early planning, might indeed be less so. I'll start looking at how the rollouts are going.MSG17 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@MSG17: Oops. I wasn't clear about the "orange variants". What I meant was to keep the categories but change the colors. I think the   DarkOrange category should become a lighter shade of green so that the three shades of green show the scope of vaccination. I also think we should detach the authorization and vaccination categories as, for example, a country in the   SpringGreen or   DarkOrange category may bump its authorization category but still maintain the same vaccination scope for a few days, requiring more combinations of categories. Maybe something like this?:

  Mass general use vaccination underway

  Mass EUA vaccination underway

  Limited vaccination underway

  Approved for general use

  EUA granted

  EUA pending

Not sure if general use and EUA should be before mass... That other category I was wary about would now be a (lesser) "yellow variant". Of course you could add it, it's your work. I just think it would be a lot of unnecessary search. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that scheme is good. I am not sure if having three shades of green will work so well though, so I will rewrite the SVG and test it out. I'll probably update it sometime today. MSG17 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The second and third green green shade is almost indistinguishable so definitely needs to be changedSYSS Mouse (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@SYSS Mouse and MSG17: What about?:

  Mass general use vaccination underway

  Mass EUA vaccination underway

  Limited vaccination underway

Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the distinction between an EUA and a "regular" authorization is not important for the map. Different countries have different types of authorizations. We would need 200+ different colors to cover all cases. I think we should simplify the map with vaccination campaign started, vaccine approved or pending authorization. Only 3 colors, plus grey for other countries. By the way, US and Canada started vaccination as well. zorxd (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The map is great but having six different colors is needlessly complex. Also not sure that "pending" anything is helpful. Every country is pending approvals and mass vaccination. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove/move some trial columns of the vaccines table

@Albertaont, Halil marx07, SYSS Mouse, Wester, and Amkgp: I propose that we move the content of the columns Completed phase (participants) Immune response, adverse effects, Clinical trial site(s) and Duration to the respective vaccine articles/sections. This would ensure that the table only shows current, relevant and not too technical/detailed information. Such action is important because the EUA and Full authorization columns are going to grow a lot in the near future and are going to make the rows too tall if nothing is done. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to make two different tables: one about the trials and one about their deployment, inline with Yair rand's proposition in Splitting off deployment?. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have 34" ultrawide display, certainly not a problem for me. 2A00:1370:812D:8B95:3122:DC37:6254:A833 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ftrebien, could we add Locationa and Duration to Template:ClinicalStudyInfo? This would allow us to place relevant data in a single line below each trial phase and eliminate two columns. I agree that the table should also be split into two: Regionally approved vaccines and Vaccine candidates based on approval but the columns should ideally remain unchanged. I don't believe we need to list every country per WP:NOTNEWS. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Agree. Besides WP:NOTNEWS, it'll be unfeasible to list every country because of cell size limitations, even without those two columns, unless only country flags are shown. Splitting tables is the best solution either way. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz, JFRN, Normchou, Albertaont, MSG17, Jirka.h23, and Amkgp: I added the desired parameters to the template in a simple manner as a first step. Now the cells can start populating these fields and the tables have those two columns removed. It's very important to do this as some row heights are getting out of hand. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexiscoutinho, thanks! Can/should we change "sites" to "locations" before we start to populate? I think that may be a clearer description for future users. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I put "sites" because editors were often including the number of "places" for each location. For example, Tozinameran had "62 in Germany, US". If editors are encouraged to find these specific numbers, then I think all trial locations should specify sites. Otherwise, if it's discouraged, then the field should be changed to "locations" and all such numbers should be removed. Do you think we should start a section to decide that? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling on this but I'd favor removing the site counts. It seems like an excessive detail that isn't maintained or consistently applied. Also not sure we have the count breakdown by trial phase. "Locations" would still support the site counts (e.g. Locations: 2 in Germany) but I do think the numbers should be removed. They can be detailed on the individual vaccine pages. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree on this point. I think there are a lot of details that can be relocated in general now that we have separate pages for the most prominent vaccines. Great work! MSG17 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I made the parameter name change and am dropping the site counts as I move over the data. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved over all of the data for the first table. Thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I see the dates of approval have mostly been removed. I think I will make a table for them as per my proposal below.MSG17 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho: I think Clinical trial site(s) can go, and to a lesser extent Duration since they are talked about in Current Phase. I think we should leave Completed phase (participants) Immune response, adverse effects in since its used as an important gating item for the table and also describes the progress being made for each individual vaccine. I expect populating of Phase III results as well over the next few months for the first 4-5 frontrunners. Albertaont (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, especially through Wikmoz's template request. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Novavax adverse effects

The punctuation and wording are wrong so the actual adverse results listed in the citation are misrepresented. It reads:”short-duration, low grade, local pain,...” but should read (no commas) “short-duration low grade (citation reads “mild) local pain,...” where local means relative to the point of injection. IPerceptor (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ad5-nCoV adverse reactions

I added the more accurate information from the Lancet paper, but it was reverted by User:Albertaont. See the diff here: [2]

I have checked the Lancet paper and it did not mention "moderate over 7 days" or anything that indicates this.

Also, the 74% rate was for one dose group's overall adverse reactions within 14 days, which include fatigue, fever, headache, injection site pain, and so on--not just fever, pain, fatigue.

It would be great if other editors could double check the above information and see if it is appropriate to revert the change. Thanks.

Normchou (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should the description for Ad5-nCoV adverse reactions reflect the original information from the Lancet paper? Normchou (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. What paper exactly? As a courtesy please link it in the RfC question. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The paper related to this question is the one below.

• No, and close RfC. Okay, this is a primary source (a RCT) so not WP:MEDRS. It's not only unreliable for biomedical claims but adding it for them would be sanctionable per the general sanctions for COVID-19. I suggest this RfC is closed as editors in this space have better things to do. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the "adverse effects" column in the vaccines table in this article be removed altogether? It looks like all of them rely on primary sources. Normchou (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate approval table

With more countries approving and starting to distribute COVID-19 vaccines, especially Tozinameran, I think it might be prudent to make a separate table with countries and approval dates. This could either use the country name as a primary sort or be structured as a timeline and be ordered by day. Any thoughts? MSG17 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Over the coming weeks and months, there will be a number of widely used vaccines, each recieving approvals from 100+ individual health agencies. It will require hundreds of references. The questions that come to mind are who will record the approvals country by country when it becomes more tedious and who will be interested in these data (now or a year from now)? The data would be more relevant in individual country articles (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in Ecuador) where their health agency approvals are of local but not global significance. Or perhaps in a new section in each vaccine article (e.g. Tocilizumab), but even there, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, when you combine that with the geopolitics that have been involved in vaccine production, putting it in country articles would make more sense. In fact, an article on the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom has already been created, which may be another good place to put this info, although I don't know if it will be significant enough to stay or if it'll get merged into another article. MSG17 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Cost section

Current Text: As of November 2020, companies subsidized under the United States' Operation Warp Speed program have set initial pricing at US$19.50 to US$25 per dose, in line with the influenza vaccine.[266] In December 2020, a Belgian politician briefly published the confidential prices agreed between vaccine producers and the EU:[267]

Changes: As of November 2020, companies subsidized under the United States' Operation Warp Speed program have set initial pricing at US$19.50 to US$25 per dose, in line with the influenza vaccine.[266] In December 2020, a Belgian politician briefly published the confidential prices Belgium would pay vaccine producers if it ordered their vaccines after regulatory approval [267]. The prices do not factor in downpayments of hundreds of millions of euros already made by the EU to some of the vaccine makers (source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-idUSKBN28S1T0). The full price paid by the EU for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 15.5 euros per dose (source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-pfizer-exclusiv-idUSKBN2800IC). The full price paid by the EU for the AstraZeneca vaccine is 2.5 euros per dose (source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-astrazeneca-exc/exclusive-astrazeneca-gets-partial-immunity-in-low-cost-eu-vaccine-deal-idINKCN26G0NH)

I would remove the table as it could lead to misinformation. But if the table is maintained, you should correct the price for the Pfizer vaccine which was 12 euros per dose in the table published by the Belgian official, NOT 12 DOLLARS as Wikipedia says now.

Fraguarascio (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Correct capitalization for the Emergency Use Authorization and EUA links (capitalize as shown) so that when you move your mouse over the link it does not display an error (this happens many times over the page). 46.12.116.34 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, what error are you seeing? Giving us more information about what you're seeing will help us fix this. Also, if any technical problems persist, consider asking for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Seagull123 Φ 14:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting I fixed the capitalization and bad links to Emergency Use Authorization. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine 2020 summary in PLOS

• Bastian, Hilda (20 December 2020). "Why Two Vaccines Passed the Finishing Line In a Year and Others Didn't, and a Month 12 Roundup". Absolutely Maybe. PLOS.

This is CC-By like all of PLOS content.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are the articles describing the mass vaccination programs in various countries

Was quite surprised to be unable to find the articles on the mass vaccination programs in the various countries. I hope I'm just searching badly, and the articles exist; but really seriously surprised, and would expect good linkage from this article to those.

Can anyone help? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A consolidated section on the global distribution effort should be created. Content can pulled from several existing sections noted here. For a deep dive into individual country distribution efforts, you should be able to find those in the 'COVID-19 pandemic in COUNTRY NAME' topics. There's a breakout article for the UK: COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom but I suspect it may be rolled back into COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom in the future. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Please add Belarus: (Ministry of Health of The Republic of Belarus) in the table of (EUA) as the second country to register/approve Gam-COVID-Vac (references as follows) (1) Staff, Reuters (21 December 2020). "Belarus registers Sputnik V vaccine, in first outside Russia - RDIF". Reuters. {{cite news}}: |first1= has generic name (help) (2) "Belarus to start COVID vaccinations in January". eng.belta.by. 21 December 2020. 42.106.198.20 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 11:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Update BBV152 (Covaxin)

Phase I-II results for BBV152 (Covaxin) have been released today. Kindly update the page. Arjunuws (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

the company announced the report for Phase I trials and presented the results through medRxiv preprint. Arjunuws (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

If you use news reports, please make sure that you don't make biomedical claims because news media is not a suitable source for that sort of content. The preprint is a usable source for the fact that a preprint exists, and for very little else. All content on medRxiv carries the disclaimer Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. The content does not meet WP:RS. --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine table country list

I was thinking of two changes to the EUA and Approved columns in the approved vaccine table to make it a little more usable:

• Remove the approving agency name (e.g. COFEPRIS). It will eliminate line wrapping for a lot of entries. I assume each country's population knows their country's health agency and non-citizens probably don't care. The agency name remains accessible in each reference for those interested.
• Sort alphabetically. The country lists will rapidly expand from here. I'm not sure there's any benefit at all to sequencing these in order of approval.

Any thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I ran with the removal of agency names. Will wait a few more days for objections before changing the sort. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

the map needs to be updated

the map needs to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernici81 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oxford-Astrazeneca applied from EUA

Should we add the pending EUA from vaccine candidate sourced or sourced 120.29.113.78 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

chAdOx1 efficacy confirmed at minimum 95% on a two-dose regimen

Further, the Times and The Telegraph have also published three articles here, here and here citing Oxford Labs and AstraZeneca confirming 100% protection from any serious/fatal symptoms. Roland Of Yew (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: WP:MEDPOP applies: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." You need a reliable secondary source to make any claim about efficacy. When the data has been published in a respectable scientific journal and analysed by a competent source, then it can be included. Your behaviour is unacceptable and you must self-revert and refrain from edit-warring as this article is subject to general discretionary sanctions as described at WP:GS/COVID19#GS. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, there seems to be considerable contradictions here. If editors check the articles ‘approved vaccines’ section and peruse the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 entries citations they will see they are from publications such as Reuters, the NYT or ‘business wire’ websites. Meanwhile, the sources I cite are direct quotes in extremely reputable publications from the research scientists directly involved and heads of the vaccine manufacturers directly referring to the most recent vaccine analysis. As for the ‘secondary sources’ Dr Margaret Harris of the W.H.O has analysed the data and commented directly on it to various broadcasters today all of which is available on said broadcasters publications. With this in mind, I see absolutely no problem in citing these sources and unless editors are willing to delete all these non-reputable citations associated with “approved vaccines” I contend that my edits stand as is.Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and particularly avoid edit warring on articles for which there are discretionary sanctions in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am referring to existing sources cited as reputable that as far as I understand no-one has an issue with.Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I don't think I can make it any clearer: medical claims (such as the efficacy of a vaccine) cannot be supported by primary sources (such as Astra Zeneca’s chief executive), nor by reports of press releases in the popular press (such as the Times). You twice inserted biomedical content based on newspaper articles: Covid vaccine boost for millions as hospitals near breaking point and Pascal Soriot interview. If you can't accept that biomedical content requires high-quality secondary sources and not articles in the popular press, then you'll leave me no alternative but to topic ban you from medical-related articles. In addition you must not reinstate content that has been challenged in an article subject to general sanctions, and I'm prepared to block you if you repeat that behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RoY, that something exists in an article because no one wants to edit war to get rid of it does not imply it is compliant. It often merely indicates that some policy-compliant medical editors have given up on trying to keep up with faulty sourcing in COVID medical content. Regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS junk in articles, you should not continue same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RoY, the rules for "biomedical content" are complex. That a drug has been approved by a government body is an economic/legal fact that media such as quality newspapers are generally held to be reliable for, though if we wish to make the effort, can probably improve on. But efficacy is a particularly medical claim that requires WP:MEDRS sourcing. However, a "topic ban [on] from medical-related articles" is not warranted by your edit history nor the discretionary sanctions peculiar to Covid articles. I see exactly one questionable revert, which is a long way away from anyone being topic banned or blocked. Please don't interpret that, however, as an invitation to make further reverts or addition of material with questionable sources. Discuss, don't war, but remember that there is long-standing consensus on the degree of sourcing required here, and you are unlikely to overturn that. We could seriously do with a bit more positively guiding comments on this talk page vs nuclear threats towards editors who made their first contentious edit on this page today. Is it any wonder that our best medical editors would rather stick forks in their eyes than edit in this sort of vicious environment. -- Colin°^Talk 22:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your balanced, neutral approach Colin.

In regards to other editors comments, I didn’t realise that citing reputable sources like The Times or The Telegraph were ‘questionable sources’ having noticed ‘Business Wire’, ‘Reuters’ and the ‘NYT’ citations. Nor what counted against an editor on Wikipedia was ‘undoing’ what I believed was a mistaken revert ‘edit warring’. With this in mind, I’ll cite the new reports that are due to be published in the next few days which will include secondary sources. However, for balance, I’ll also (if acceptable) remove the ‘Business Wire’, Reuters, and the New York Times citations as they tend to cause confusion among editors inexperienced in editing bio-medical articles . Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

New map

When was the map switched out? The previous version was much easier to keep updated by simply editing the source code. What was the rationale for the change? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Survivors

I'd like to see some discussion of the vaccination of people who has suffered COVID-19. Does it matter if they are asymptomatic, with mild symptoms, severe symptoms? Are the vaccines indicated/irrelevant/dangerous for them? --Error (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (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)

Planning and investment content duplication

It appears that most of COVID-19 vaccine § Planning and investment was copied to Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. If we're keeping this breakout article then we need to remove the content from this topic and transclude back the excerpt using {{excerpt|Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator|paragraphs=1}}. I'm not clear how best to separate the national contributions since this section is half duplicated but should remain. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr, RexxS, and Sdkb: for content deduplication input. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz - my sense is that copyediting is the solution, with the goal of retaining content in both articles for the common reader, WP:READER. Both articles are current and dynamic for updates. The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (COVAX) article is a major international topic that will be increasingly important over 2021 and longer for COVID-19 vaccines. If the transclude code doesn't interfere with each article keeping relevant content, WP:TRANS, then it could be done, but I am inclined to edit rather than remove content or worry about coding. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that copy editing is the solution. Which version should be copy edited though? We can transclude the content in whole or in part back to this topic but to avoid duplication of effort there should be a single copy of the content. Ideally, someone could author a solid 2-3 paragraph lead for Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, which can then be transcluded here. For the moment, perhpas we should have the content live in Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator and transclude it in full to this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I see you did some serious editing to Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. It's a big improvement! Does the new four paragraph lead cover all the major points? If so, we can probably cut some of the transcluded subsections from this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Pollard quoted stating AZD1222 90%+ efficacy claim to be peer reviewed in 24 hours

source Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this old news from November relevant? Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Because it’s breaking news? The 90% plus efficacy claim is being peer reviewed within the next 24 hours. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)