Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

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

Data behind the vaccine

https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/

Where to add this? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not WP:MEDRS so not really useful for anything biomedical; maybe useful for something on the (mis)handling of the various announcements, but possibly at AstraZeneca rather than here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the causes for Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press apply here. It is the very evidence quality, which is assessed. The author is Hilda Bastian, integrally associated with Cochrane. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we need something rather better than an article in Wired for an assessment of evidence quality, especially in this subject area where sanctions are in effect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Should we rename this one Covishield? ,Crookesmoor (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As of now, I oppose moving this article to "Covishield". From what I could gather, that name recently started to be referenced by Media in India (See ). If someone can find any source be the University of Oxford and/or AstraZeneca with that name, please let me know, as I can't find any yet. Anyway, even if "Covishield" comes to be the commercial name of this vaccine, the page should be moved to have the name of the pharmaceutical name of the substance (See: (International nonproprietary name (INN))), not the commercial name (See: Gam-COVID-Vac for "Sputnik V" and Tozinameran for "Comirnaty"). ACLNM (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, per WP:MEDTITLE. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Too soon to move this page? New discussion on 05 January 2021

There has been some traction (mainly in Indian media, from what I could find) to start calling this vaccine by the name "Covishield". Even yesterday I opposed the adoption of that name, defending that the page should only be moved once the pharmaceutical name of the vaccine's active component(s) is established. I was now scrolling through AstraZeneca's press releases and I found this press release ; according to it, they themselves refer to their own vaccine by the name "COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, formerly AZD1222". I can't find yet the International nonproprietary name (INN) for this vaccine, so I suppose it is not yet established/public. I propose that, before we move the page to any of the commercial names, we wait at least a few weeks for new developments, especially regarding the INN and/or the substance's official name. ACLNM (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Half-first-dose issue

I was wondering what happened with the issue of whether a first half-dose is better than a full first dose or not. I found the following article that claims that the 90-percent efficacy rate for the first half-dose did not hold up under further analysis—the higher success rate may have been due to a longer gap between the two doses. Gabn1 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Would need WP:MEDRS (and then there's the question of what "better" means; better for an individual, or better for society?) Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

95% effectiveness, if the 2 shots are separated by 3 months?

"2 min read. Updated: 29 Dec 2020, 07:23 AM IST

Title: Efficacy of Oxford jabs at 95% if given 3 months apart: SII.

AstraZeneca will soon release data showing that the effectiveness of its covid-19 vaccine rises to as much as 95% if the two shots are separated by about 2-3 months, said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of Serum Institute of India (SII), the British company’s manufacturing partner".

https://www.livemint.com/science/health/efficacy-of-oxford-jabs-at-95-if-given-3-months-apart-sii-11609181643451.html

Yes I know 3 months is a too long time in this covid fight, or is it? With 1 months the efficacy is much lower, so why not wait for 2 more months?

--ee1518 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a type of DNA vaccine?

Per Talk:COVID-19 vaccine#Missing link to DNA vaccine, is this drug classed as a DNA vaccine?

I was not sure, but if it is, we should state it in the description (and update the DNA vaccine article)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would say the key point is "replication-deficient simian adenovirus vector" is not wikilinked or otherwise defined. replication-deficient->(Deficient in replication) simian->Simian adenovirus->adenovirus vector->Viral vector .... not my area so I'm not touching it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Britishfinance It is not a DNA vaccine but explaining that the mechanism is, as for DNA vaccines, to bring a DNA strand encoding the Spike into the cell nucleus, is a good idea. Adding an Adenovirus-vector section into the DNA vaccine article (explaining the same) is not a bad idea neither. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:854A:FE19:B4A0:45F7 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think (AFAIK) it IS a DNA vaccine, in the sense that it deivers engineered/modified DNA to the target cells, with the aim to make them produce the SARS2 spike protein. I do not know the specifics nor I am knowledgeable about this stuff but even WHO says that the distinction between viral vector vaccine and DNA vaccine is not so clear. Also the WP article about viral vector vaccine mentions that is "based on the same rationale as DNA vaccines". I heard a professional coronavirologists call it DNA vaccine (in a youtube video trying to explain the mechanism to the viewers). It would be interesting and valuable to clear this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.189.237 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

The “Production and Supply” section doesn’t actually have anything about production in it. AFAIK the production is at a number of plants in India, Europe and the UK. Would be good to flesh that out. Fig (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Involvement of Bill Gates Foundation

[1] This article seem to indicate that Oxford reversed its original position on pricing the vaccine, on the urging of Bill Gates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.29.8 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

More up-to-date.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

EU press briefing

Press briefing on EU recommendation for COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca
Live broadcast - 15:00 - 15:45 CET
Date: 29 January 2021
This virtual press briefing will discuss the outcome of the evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca by EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP).

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/events/press-briefing-eu-recommendation-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful link to Covax Oxford vaccine distribution

Here is a link to a useful page setting out Covax's vaccine distribution program with the help of the Serum Institute of India and SK Bioscience of South Korea. I don't have time to add relevant info to this page, but thought I'd share the link: https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covax/COVAX-Interim-Distribution-Forecast.pdf Jopal22 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

South Africa stops rollout

"Rollout of AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in South Africa After Study Small clinical trial found that it doesn’t appear to protect recipients against mild and moderate illness from a fast-spreading new strain of the coronavirus"

References

Infobox vaccine type -: adenovirus vector or recombinant?

Anon IP's seem to be doing unsummarised edit wars on whether to to have vaccine-type as adenovirus vector or recombinant in Template:Infobox drug. Have we have a consensus view please. Don't just edit it in, put reasoning and gain consensus here first please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Question, are there both adenovirus vector or recombinant is vaccine type or there different? 136.158.32.147 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick passing comment (not throughly checked): The WHO report currently in the external link classifies the type as recombinant which is a standard type mentioned in Template:Infobox drug (and covers a wide variety of vaccines). Adenovirus vector is I believe mentioned more widely(maybe not by WP:MEDRS sources though), and may not be straighforwardly wikilinked to/from recombinant from memory. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WHO calls it recombinant here [3] but my understanding is that it's both. "Viral vector" means that a harmless virus like Ad5 is used to deliver the vaccine material into the target cell. "Recombinant" means that the DNA of the viral vector has been modified to invoke an immune response against covid, rather than against Ad5. The Oxford vaccine uses a simian virus (the viral vector) to deliver a spike protein coding sequence (the recombinant DNA) to the target cell. I believe in the context of covid vaccines "viral vector" and "recombinant" may mean the same thing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22 Yes, instead of discussing of the infobox, let's explain this into the #vaccine_platform section. ChAd is a DNA virus, following entry its DNA genes are transported to the cell nucleus to be transcripted into mRNA and translated by the cell's machinery. AZD1222 is replication defective: some essential adenoviral genes have been deleted and replaced by one coding for the spike, following entry of the *recombinant* virus its genes are transported to the cell nucleus thereby leading to the expression of the spike (eventually anchored onto the cell's surface, see this preprint), at this point it is the same for all approved vaccines: presentation of peptides on MHC-I, activation of T-cells, and the slightly more mysterious (cytotoxicity & phagocytosis against spike-expressing cells?) presentation on MHC-II on antigen presenting cells, which is the most desired effect, eventually transported to lymphoid organs and leading to B-cells/Th-cells affinity maturation of antibodies. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:6088:EC38:1F6E:EEA1 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Covishield in lead

@Whywhenwhohow: Hi, you reverted the inclusion of the market name Covishield in the lead, citing WP:MEDLEAD. Please could you indicate where in WP:MEDLEAD it indicates that common market names should not be included in the lead section - MOS:MED clearly states "alternative names may be specified in the lead" and that we should "use plain English" if possible. In almost all other cases (e.g. Ibuprofen, Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Trastuzumab) articles include names that drugs are commonly marketed under. Thus, there is an imperative to include Covishield in the lead using both precedence and the MOS. ArcMachaon (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The articles for many other Covid-19 vaccines mention trade names in both the lead and the infobox. Articles for some medications write this information in a separate paragraph, which may make sense if the name is not widely used in the Anglosphere. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:GLOBAL and MOS:MED we should therefore include it in the lead - it is a widely used name in India when using English there (see WP:WORLDWIDE). I will therefore add it back into the lead. @Whywhenwhohow: if you have any further queries direct them here. Thanks ArcMachaon (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Blood clots (help!)

Hi Wiki team, I found a link I think is the first mention of blood clots, the entire article is biased and probably not reliable, but may be the start of the rumours? Seems a non-western writer as well so motivation ??

https://laptrinhx.com/news/the-appalling-science-and-conflicts-of-interest-behind-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-KlwKZpx/

Hope this may help in quelling the rumours 2404:4408:2365:D700:F97D:E3A4:B099:B60E (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What we have is fine. The link you provide is to disinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

German and Norwegian scientists have found indications that a special kind of blood clots are significantly connected with the vaccine. [4] Agnerf (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A WP:MEDRS compliant source such as the ones in the article is required for such a statement. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Astrazeneca Propaganda

It would be good to have third party sources here and not make this entire article a Astrazeneca advocacy piece. Looks a bit ridiculous - borderline North Korean. Huasteca (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The article has over 200 references, only a handful of which are to AstraZeneca material, and for mundane claims so far as I can see. Alexbrn (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The section on blood clots in both the summary and under "suspensions" almost entirely mirrors the British propaganda getting pushed heavily on social media and other platforms the past few days. This wikipedia article barely mentions that the concern is actually extremely rare types of blood clotting (low platelet levels and/or CVST), and accepts the inappropriate categorization of the reactions as generic blood clots. However, the resulting emphasis on the expected prevalence rate of normal blood clots from various entities is completely irrelevant and highly misleading.

Since the correct data is publicly available with very little effort, the persistence in ignoring the relevance of the subtype of the clots from people who should know better is highly suggestive of deliberate propaganda. But perhaps if too many external sources are nonsense, Wikipedia is helpless to exclude it and must pretend that that nonsense is factual, relevant, and authoritative. 86.83.81.68 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sound like conspiracism to me. Sources for "British propaganda" would be required, and WP:MEDRS for any medical content. Wikipedia needs to be careful not to reflect misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You are free to add any content you want, but please remember to adhere to WP:MEDRS. Content that didn't follow the guidelines may be removed. SunDawn (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Literally all of the sources related to health concerns are Astrazeneca or British government sources. There is a very clear bias in this article. It seems systemic and deliberate to not just me. Huasteca (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Literally, incorrect. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Erm... Currently there is only one source on the Safety Profile section and its from the British government. A little bit rich to respond so laconically. Huasteca (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And the section above about suspensions has other sources. In any event, the MHRA is that kind of source that Wikipedia prefers, since is is a strong WP:MEDRS, and strong WP:RS. Your assertionss, without evidence, that it is somehow untrustworthy are not useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of "AstraZeneca propaganda" and "British propaganda" are not going to get anything or anyone anywhere. The page has tons of sources, very few of which are published by AstraZeneca. Moreover, there is no viable reason to doubt the validity of the statements of the British health authorities, who have a history of reliable publications and are among the institutions with the most experience in applying the vaccine. If you have a source, that meets the criteria of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, which states the opposite, I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. However, the accusation you levy, as it stands at the moment, is entirely unfounded and dare I say completely ridiculous. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Goodposts Frankly there is every reason to doubt the validity of British sources who are stridently defending "their" vaccine both for diplomatic and public health reasons - a scare would jeopardize their vaccination drive. British press is simply engaging in histrionic nationalistic chest-beating. We now know the mechanism whereby this thrombosis occurs with Astrazeneca - a condition known as Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT). So far there have been 9 deaths in Germany alone related to this vaccines - all of them in women under 65 so we know the profile at risk. None of this is reflected in the article. As it now stands it is propaganda and whitewashing. Now that both Canada and Germany have completeley suspended use of this vaccine it is time for an overhaul of this article. Huasteca (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been tens of millions of people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. As the EMA noted, around 100,000 people get various forms of blood clots in the EU naturally each month. The current scientifically-estimated risk for blood clots following the AstraZeneca jab is 20/30,000,000. Those numbers are astronomically low and rely on the assumption that there is a causal link between all of those cases and the vaccine. Scientific literature points to various immune system reactions, which, while may be triggered by the vaccine, are not necessarily its fault. A similar and in fact worse reaction is likely to take place in those same people, should the person in question be exposed to COVID-19, a virus that is proven to increase the risk of blood clots among other undesirable cardiovascular events. The article, as it is written, currently explains this and notes that the remote risk of such a reaction has nevertheless now been included in the product's information sheet. Moreover, there is no proven statistically significant increase in the number of thrombosis-related events in the vaccinated population as compared to the general population. A lot of the information on the page concerning the possibility of thrombosis cites primarily the EMA, not British sources. As you are probably well aware, the UK left the EU quite recently, and the EU has no claim of ownership over the AstraZeneca formulation. Even when referring to British sources - polemics on the talk page aren't enough. Do you have concrete, reputable, reliable sources that meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS and credibly dispute the findings of the British medical authorities, the University of Oxford, etc, that have thus far had a very long and excellent track record regarding their accuracy? Without such sources, you will not be able to substantiate your claims, and your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Goodposts (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by propaganda: Playing around with numbers to come up with ludicrous conclusions among some journos like Astrazeneca REDUCING your risk of blood clots or throwing figures like "20/30,000,000 risk". This can only fool uneducated people. How many women under the age of 65 have been vaccinated with Astazeneca in Germany? Find the figure because I suspect its less than 200,000. So far 9 women in that age bracket have died from blood clots caused by the jab in Germany which is why the country has suspended the administration of the vaccine today. There is no lack of sources, as you well know if you google "Astrazeneca" and set the filter for the last 24 hours. As I said, enough nonsense already. We need to reflect scientific findings. https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550 Huasteca (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

All that need be done here is to follow WP:MEDRS. The EMA is one such. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

EMA have a safety concern issued on the blood clot issue and are scrutinising it carefully. If my memory servers me well, and it may not, I think that had planned to issue an update on Thursday (1 April 2021). but I am very far from certain of that fact.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Huge citation needed for "Playing around with numbers to come up with ludicrous conclusions". Wikipedians' suspicions are not enough to change encyclopaedic content, it has to be cited. In this case, according to the very strict MEDRS standards. Fun fact - I actually had included the base story behind that very same article a few revisions ago, purely as a statement by the researchers and not a medical fact, and some Wikipedians objected even to that. Upon reflection, I actually agreed with them, and did not object to the removal of said content, as in the end of the day it's actually very barebones from a medical point of view and is published by a popular media organization (though one that would usually meet the requirements of RS in a non-medical page), not a scientific journal. Your last statement, however, I can agree with - "We need to reflect scientific findings". I'm on board with that 100% - that's why we have the strict MEDRS standard. So, if you have any sources that meet that standard, you're absolutely welcome to include them in the article. Arguing with other wikipedians on the talk page about your 'suspicions', however, is not grounds for the removal of cited MEDRS content, nor goes any way to prove any inaccuracy in the presently provided sources or the publications behind them. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Obese issue in Lede

Can I had peer review of the use of "obese" in the lede as I have to recuse from edits on the subject to avoid general sanctions, which is not necessary should an IP be being dynamic as may be the case here. Please consider if this is a WP:SYNTHESIS of results and this is detail which should be in the body rather than in the lede. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@88.244.50.161 and 178.240.54.5:: Please join the discussion as in my view the obese question from intermediate results from one trials is an over emphasis in the lede. Please contact Astrazenica dirrect or the EMA or similar bodies if you have a concern or a point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I remain far from convinced the lede of this article needs a whole sentence defining obesity. Maybe the body justifies it. It seems a WP:POINTy spat to me but why should I risk getting blocked fixing that point.Djm-mobile (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (NB: Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark). Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I've removed the definition of obesity, which was off topic and certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Danbloch: The problem is the bare URL Lancet source doesn't explicitly mention Obesity, that it does mention of maximum BMI:30; which would be daft to but in the lead section. It fact pulling out obesity from the source which already said "who for the most part had no underlying condition" is probably WP:POINTy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Will someone fix the Lancet URL thankyou

Since Danbloch is requiring me to fix the Bare Lancet URL on the article summaries and I am trying to resolve a RL mess can someone please fix it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

​Done. I'm still not sure why you didn't do it yourself, but you did say please. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dan: I am multitasking and have mental issues why I was not going to sort that cite; which probably should replace some self published AZ stuff about the same trial. I've also been heavily slagged by anon IP's and pretty not supported much by the community ... though we do have a good source out it. I may embellish it at some point (I haven't looked at what you've done since). I think there's a few bad cites here where people have pointed at the top page to the EMA /EU website without leaving an access-time and these have been usurped and a right pain to WP:V. Any for the Lancet job done.  Done. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Blood Clots

The possible issue with blood clots is being covered at Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events and I would expect a link from this article to it should be provided, possibly from the Safety Profile section, when that article has matured and stablised sufficiently. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That article should be merged here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Id disagree simply because its likely to become WP:UNDUE. With respect I'm sufficiently strong about that to call any attempt to merge as as controversial merge and to go through formal merge procedure. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Comment: I observe To be free has placed the page protection level to Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite) effectively blocking anon IP's and new users. While there has been some problems from anon. IP's there have also be some helpful contributions and its unclear to me if these contributions would be given via Edit Requests (and if given that way they can sometimes be time consuming to implement). Obviously there is the lower option of pending changes but this requires an admin or someone with "pending changes reviewers" reviewers right to accept the change, though anyone can revert it. (NB: I have pending changes reviewers right that I occasionally use but I suspect most muggles don't have it).Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No section on deaths? Continued POV pushing

The article still skirts around the deaths caused by blood clots. The UK has already reported 7 deaths out of the 30 who have developed the blood clots. None of this is in the article. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clotting-doctors-b1826144.html. There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots, contrary to what the article currently says. Again this information being actively concealed by certain editors is very concerning. --Huasteca (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source for "There is no longer any doubt"? All sources on this matter must be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop using WP:MEDRS as a catch-all argument to stonewall this article. It doesn't mean anything in this context. Nothing in it justifies not reporting thrombotic deaths caused by Astrazeneca, Alexbrn.--Huasteca (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It means everything in this context. You are push your personal, scaremongering POV and if it continues you will be forcibly stopped from such monkey business. Alexbrn (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)