Talk:COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Better sources

As per WP:MEDRS, let's try to move to content based on systematic reviews in medical journals. This systematic review is now out (doi:10.3390/jcm9030623). Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's not clear exactly what you mean by "move to" there. Do you specifically mean adding reference to medical journals where available, or do you mean also removing sourced content where the source is not a medical journal? BD2412 T 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Using more references to systematic reviews in medical journals where possible, using references to other studies in medical journals as a second choice, and removing most content citing non-MEDRS compliant sources, i.e. news reports. Obviously, each particular piece of text and citation needs to be considered within its own context. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my point from several sections above that the material of concern was generally copied from Coronavirus disease 2019. This is not intended as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point, but that this article originates from that "other stuff". This is important because Coronavirus disease 2019 is obviously the article getting more pageviews (about fifty times as many as this page), meaning that if this is a problem, it is magnified there. Furthermore, if the problem is "fixed" here but not there, then these articles will have inconsistent information. I would therefore strongly counsel addressing the contents of the supertopic article first. BD2412 T 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I presume such a stricture would not apply to content like the sentence I just added about The Guardian reporting that President Trump attempted to secure exclusive rights to such a vaccine. BD2412 T 18:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with your two comments immediately above. Yes, we should improve text on Coronavirus disease 2019 in line with WP:MEDRS. And, yes, reporting (from multiple news sources) that Trump sought exclusive rights to a vaccine is a political perspective that need satisfy just WP:RS and not WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dead link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

Which link? BD2412 T 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think he means my first link at the top. Try doi:10.3390/jcm9030623 - that works. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Article purpose/name

@BD2412: I think you may have been premature with creating this article. Can you clarify what the purpose is? The lead section and most content focuses on SARS-CoV-2, but you do cover other coronaviruses.

Is the name right? If you want to cover multiple coronaviruses, then shouldn't it be Coronavirus vaccines? If you're focusing on SARS-CoV-2, then I think it's important to be clear that no vaccine yet exists, so the title should be SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research or something.

This article should follow WP:MEDRS. There's a lot of non-MEDRS-compliant reporting of vaccine research. We need to be careful here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My intent is to follow the model of HIV vaccine (for which there is, of course, also no vaccine in existence). However, as the article presently indicates, there are vaccine candidates in phase III clinical trials, so it would be more accurate to say that vaccines are being tested for effectiveness than that they don't exist at all. With respect to WP:MEDRS, the content in this article is almost entirely material compiled from other articles identified in the edit history, so to the extent that a problem with sourcing exists, it originates in those articles, and should be fixed in those first. Cheers! BD2412 T 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The current title is confusing to me. If I understand the subject of the article correctly, it should be titled something like SARS-CoV-2 vaccine or COVID-19 vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research, as Bondegezou suggested. I don't really think "Coronavirus vaccines" (as a broader topic including SARS etc.) is coherent enough for a single article, but I'm far from an expert so I may be wrong. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly haven't decided myself what the scope should be. My understanding is that researchers working on the COVID-19 vaccine are using work done on previous coronavirus vaccine efforts as a springboard for their work, so that it is relevant to mention either way. BD2412 T 13:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of prior coronavirus vaccines is appropriate either way, but we need to decide what the article is about in order to decide what the title is. If we're just concentrating on SARS-CoV-2, then the titled should be something like COVID-19 vaccine research. I think vaccines are more normally named after the diseases than the virus, thus "COVID-19 vaccine". I still think this article must avoid giving the impression there is a vaccine, thus "... vaccine research". (I would support the same for HIV vaccine.)

There are sourcing problems elsewhere, but that's no excuse to repeat them here! We must aim to comply with MEDRS. Long lists of different people developing vaccines based on news reports are not useful, so I'd cut back on those. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think an article focused on COVID-19 vaccine research makes more sense (of course other coronavirus vaccine research should be mentioned where relevant). COVID-19 vaccine research works for me. Any objections to that title? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I will move this to COVID-19 vaccine for now, and we can have a multimove RM proposal for both this and HIV vaccine. I would prefer that our titles remain internally consistent to that extent. I believe there may also be some other "vaccine" articles for conditions for which a vaccine is only in the research stages. BD2412 T 02:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the title COVID-19 vaccine too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the need to link the move discussions: the HIV and COVID-19 vaccine research is at different stages, so they're not exactly comparable. I support a move to "... vaccine research" here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The process to request a contested move is through Wikipedia:Requested moves. BD2412 T 11:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We're allowed to discuss matters on the Talk page first. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We certainly are, but I don't think we are headed towards the resolution you propose. It seems pointless to move this page to a "research" title when it will just have to be moved back once that research translates into a vaccine, even if the vaccine itself is only in some experimental stage. By contrast, even long-established vaccines such as measles and polio are constant subjects of continuing research, which is not reflected in the article titles. In addition to HIV, there are articles like Cytomegalovirus vaccine, Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, and Schistosomiasis vaccine, covering various still-incipient efforts to develop vaccines. More broadly, Wikipedia has numerous articles on topics like films and albums in production or treaties in negotiation which indicate the subject without indicating the stage of development. BD2412 T 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these. Some seem OK to me. For example, Schistosomiasis vaccine describes a vaccine that exists and is being tested, although we don't know whether it works. Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, on the other hand, seems much more like this case and I think should be re-named also.

The concern here, I suggest, is that there is considerable misinformation, conspiracy theories, going around saying a vaccine already exists. It is thus important to be very clear that that isn't the case. Maybe that issue hasn't come up with the much lower profile Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine? Moving a page isn't difficult: the idea that because we will have to move it back at some point in the future so there's no point moving it now doesn't seem persuasive to me. We're not talking about some vast effort required. I've probably spent longer writing this comment than it would take! Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

per my prior note on the main articlecoronavirus disease 2019 talkpage , it should be Coronavirus 19 vaccine research/or COVID-19 vaccine research...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are conspiracy theories - but there are also actual vaccines, already at the first-in-human stage. If you want to be accurate, then say there is no vaccine approved by a regulatory agency: but that isn't going to help with the conspiracy theorists. Getting together to say there is no vaccine when there is TV footage of people being vaccinated in the Seattle trial is only going to look like....a conspiracy. Hildabast (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oak Ridge project with SUMMIT

In the "Preclinical research" section an Oak Ridge project utiltizing the SUMMIT computer is described. Isn't this research aimed at identifying an anti-viral, rather than a vaccine? --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The CNN article refers to using these 77 compounds to make vaccines, but the original ChemRxiv piece says nothing at all about vaccines. More to the point, what the CNN article describes is not how vaccines work at all. I would agree with removing it on this basis (or moving it to a different article that is more relevant), but I am concerned that someone else will come along and add it back, unless we have some explanation of why CNN is not quite right in characterizing this as a step towards a vaccine. BD2412 T 11:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, obviously. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 vaccine → Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research – Current title gives the impression that there already exist a vaccine. We should be very clear that this is not the case. In addition, this article documents the research into a vaccine, so that should be in the title. See earlier discussion. The title COVID-19 vaccine research is also fine by me, the purpose of this RM is to append research to the title. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. There are several other articles covering research into vaccines that do not yet exist, such as HIV vaccine, Cytomegalovirus vaccine, Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, and Schistosomiasis vaccine. Wikipedia has numerous articles on topics like films and albums in production or treaties in negotiation which indicate the subject without indicating the stage of development. If there is any confusion, this can be spelled out in the first line of the lede. Furthermore, it is likely that a vaccine will begin the first stages of testing soon enough that it does not make sense to move the article just to move it back when that happens. BD2412 T 17:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above reasons - also - due to related recent news re first stages of testing expected soon on a possible vaccine from the Moderna biotechnology company - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• support there is a lot of media coverage on the Pandemic any article on a possible vaccine should be crystal clear it is 'research' (meaning not available yet)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support We know there are conspiracy theories circulating that a vaccine already exists, so it is all the more important that we are accurate in the article title and we do not give a false impression. Sure, Wikipedia has an article about the unicorn, so there are articles about things that don't exist, but there isn't any public confusion about unicorns. Being clear doesn't cost us anything, so let's be clear. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: I think COVID-19 vaccine research is fine, rather than Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research. Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per BD2412. Its a valid topic and title, even as a hypothetical. -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research or Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine as other related articles refer to it as coronavirus 2019. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons mentioned above. The name is only misleading if you're 1. a conspiracy theorist, 2. have a massive confirmation bias, and 3. have a mental condition that prevents you from reading articles beyond their titles. Normal people don't have any of these problems, let alone all three at once. We shouldn't change established naming policies as a reaction to such fringe groups. --Veikk0.ma 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remerge. I don't understand why the article was split from Coronavirus disease 2019 in the first place. That article was not too long and this is an integral part of the coverage there. If it is a separate article, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine makes more sense. The vaccine prevents infection, not disease (our article is HIV vaccine, not AIDS vaccine). Dekimasuよ! 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be a remarkably shortsighted approach, with work being done on multiple fronts to develop a vaccine. A vaccine is not the same thing as the disease it prevents. Every vaccine that has been developed in human history, or is at some reasonable stage of development, has its own article in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 16:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think the last part is the key point (and perhaps what the proposal is picking up on): there is no vaccine and I’m not sure what is considered a reasonable stage of development. I’m a bit taken aback by “remarkably shortsighted” because nothing prevents us from splitting the article out again when it’s warranted. But at any rate, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine makes more sense to me. Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are, per reports, tests underway right now. Even if it is unlicensed and unproven, what is being tested is a vaccine. At this point, we can't say that there is no vaccine, but that the vaccines in development have yet to be proven. BD2412 T 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 is that a logical basis for naming this article?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, this article is about the vaccine, whatever stage of development it is at. The picture is a bit hazy right now, but it may well clear up before the deadline for this discussion to close. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is, indeed, work being done on multiple fronts to develop a vaccine. However, most of that work fails WP:MEDRS. Whatever name is picked, can I remind editors to follow WP:MEDRS, which does not support detailed coverage of early experiments? Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If WP:MEDRS does not support detailed coverage of early experiments, then it can not be reasonably used for an article that needs to cover these things to be informative to readers. We can't pretend that reliable sources are not reporting these activities. BD2412 T 21:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not the job of Wikipedia to cover everything: WP:NOT. We follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:MEDRS. If you don't like them, take it to the Talk page for MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS specifically applies only to biomedical information, not to commercial information. It has no bearing on whether we report that companies or entities are testing a vaccine, absent claims about the specific biomedical functionality or effectiveness of that vaccine. BD2412 T 23:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about a vaccine (for people) clearly falls under WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know how to write an article on a medical topic, thanks. BD2412 T 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Lets work on ensuring this article satisfies WP:MEDRS then. I quote: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

And: "Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content." Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support renaming to "... research," because no regulator-approved vaccine has been released yet. -Mardus /talk 21:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• oppose. current title is succinct and adequately identifies the subject. - Altenmann >talk 04:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per BD2412, whose opinion I agree with on this._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Was leaning towards supporting the Move, however after giving it a thought, I oppose the move. The logic given behind move is the title gives the impression the vaccine already exists. There is an article on wikipedia for another entity which has the same state of existence and has caused much strife and rumor-mongering in the world - God. Wikipedia's purpose is not to enforce social correctness. The article is about a subject, and IMO that subject should remain the title of the article. If a vaccine is developed down the line(which it will), will the article be renamed/moved again? However, if the article stays here, any such development can be easily incorporated. Tyrannosaurhex @ 19:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support rename to “COVID-19 Vaccine Research” because there is no actual vaccine yet. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 04:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: COVID-19 is the disease, the virus is SARS-CoV-2. It should be SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (optional: +research). This follows the pattern found by BD2412 above: HIV vaccine, not AIDS vaccine which is a redirect. I weakly prefer the title without research. --mfb (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Move to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research per examples and reasons above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose The title is simple and to-the-point. The first few words of the lede are "A COVID-19 vaccine is a hypothetical vaccine...." Could not be clearer than that. Plus, things are happening very quickly, although it will likely be a year before such a vaccine is available.Cleveland Todd (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - There currently is no vaccine for COVID-19 so the current title is somewhat misleading as it implies there is currently a vaccine. 'COVID-19 vaccine research' is a more accurate title. If and when a vaccine is available, then the article can be revisited to determine if it should be titled "COVID-19 Vaccine". It is projected that no vaccine will be available for at least 18 months. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support So far no clear indication whether a vaccine has been invented and Wikipedia should not be blatant hoax. It is better to rename as COVID-19 vaccine research Abishe (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Move to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research per examples and reasons above. Robertpedley (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now - The article title implies a vaccine has already been discovered, which it hasn't been. It should be changed for the sake of accuracy. Once a vaccine is found, the article can be renamed back to the original title. Love of Corey (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• SARS-CoV-2 vaccine plox. There is currently an investigational vaccine in phase 1 trials, and many others in development. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support: this is only research, the results for which won't be known until 2021. Most of these candidates will fail. Editors seem overexcited about these developments, and are getting caught up in news hype. Please observe WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. --Zefr (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not click-bait, as conspiracy theorists might see it. The title does lead one directly to the bottom line of there is none. It also mirrors others in its class. Lindenfall (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The actual vaccine does not exist yet. The only thing happening currently is the research. Once the vaccine does become approved and available, should the page for the vaccine be created. boldblazer 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The article in its current state focuses on the research anyways. No harm in clarifying that from the start. – OfficialURL (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. The even in its current state, the "Research" term could be used as a section title. Also oppose per BD2412 and Cleveland Todd.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The distinction is unimportant concerning a title, between a nonexistent vaccine for COVID-1 and an existent vaccine for COVID-1. Bus stop (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine research or more broadly 'Drug research'?

My edits here today were rightfully reverted by a mobile IP user because I had mistakenly added information on antiviral drug candidates, not specifically vaccines. But the most promising drug class to relieve COVID-19 infection - at present - is the antiviral category, such as remdesivir. People are using Wikipedia (over 100,000 page views in the past month) for updates on the clinical progress of any drug candidate to treat the disease. Perhaps we should be considering a page move to a broader article title: "COVID-19 drug research". --Zefr (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

That would be a different topic altogether. Vaccines are a preventative measure, and not any kind of "therapy"; they are unique in both their formulation and operation, which is why we have distinct articles on each of the approximately three dozen specific human vaccines developed in the course of human history. BD2412 T 19:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Having information on development of therapies or preventatives or more broadly "drugs" all in one place would be useful to most Wikipedia users unfamiliar with medicines used to treat the virus and see the process of clinical research. I think we have the responsibility to consolidate. --Zefr (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't do that for any other vaccines. Each is its own article, and quite frankly, properly recording the process for developing a vaccine will take up so much space that having anything else will quickly make it overly long. Also, to the point, vaccines are not used to treat the virus. They are a different class of things. You might as well combine the articles on the medicines with face mask and social distancing. BD2412 T 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be so unwieldy to include every possible preventative. We already have tracking started by using bullet points for the ~35 drugs in development. Progress in drug development will be slow, so the article - once established with the individual drug candidates - would be easy to update. If we challenge ourselves to making it digestible for non-medical encyclopedia users, broader coverage than only vaccines would likely help. --Zefr (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Then start a separate article on COVID-19 drug research and include a see also or {{see main}} link to this one. I strongly oppose conflating the topics, for the reasons stated. BD2412 T 20:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

New article: COVID-19 drug development

Here, for perspective of the drug development process and antiviral candidates. Content from the COVID-19 vaccine article was transcluded to be comprehensive. --Zefr (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Recommended explorations, add?

From this: One expert recommends exploring currently-used live vaccines to increase the recipient’s immune response. Among those is Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG), which has long been used against tuberculosis and other respiratory infections. One study found it reduced respiratory infections by 70 to 80 percent.

X1\ (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: - please, no. That is an opinion piece. Unless a news article in a reliable source documents a significant number of experts calling for such action, we should not include it. starship.paint (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I attempted, Light show. X1\ (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Reverting trial registry reports to drug company promotional claims in news reports

The clinical trial section keeps editing over ClinicalTrials.gov entries with news reports with inaccuracies. In the latest reversion of a correction I made - where it was claimed a trial that won't be finished till 2022 will be finished in 2020 (when a preliminary stage is being completed). It was argued that ClinicalTrials.gov wasn't a secondary source and the newspaper article, which cites drug company spokesperson promoting the company, is a more reliable source. This makes no sense: this would mean we could never cite a study from a medical journal either, only what journalists say about it. That's clearly absurd at any time, but even more so when it's not even authors being interviewed, but drug company spokespeople. Hildabast (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hildabast - the Phase I study in question, adequately summarized by the BioWorld report (which is not unduly promotional), is forecast to last 6 months for subject evaluation, then - as customary - a few further weeks for data summaries and reporting, collectively implying the results of safety and dose-escalation will be known by the end of 2020. More details are provided in the Clinicaltrials.gov report, but that is a Cansino-initiated filing unnecessary in specifics to report in the encyclopedia for a Phase I study. WP:NOTJOURNAL #7 guides editors to write for the general, literate public, not specifically for health statisticians or other scientists. At this stage of early clinical development, just the outlines of such a preliminary study, as reliably reported by BioWorld, are sufficient. --Zefr (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Adjusted to "with that phase of the study to last through the end of 2020." to clarify that more phases are needed. Will see if any reviews are available.

Neither source is very good. So meh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this further and it indeed says "Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 30, 2020... Estimated Study Completion Date: December 20, 2022"

The "Primary Completion Date" is "The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Over 100 drugs are in testing, add?

• Bob Herman Over 100 drugs are in testing in the race to treat coronavirus March 25, 2020 Axios

X1\ (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Most drugs being tested are not vaccines. I suppose this would be relevant as a secondary source for vaccines in development that are otherwise reliably sourced. BD2412 T 23:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This research document (Milken Institute) counts 47 vaccine candidates and 71 "treatments" in development, so if we accept Milken research as reliable (sources given for each candidate; far right column with a link), the total is 118 (24 March update). Each could be independently verified in university/institution releases or news media. --Zefr (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: Refer to milken institute report, there are 47 vaccines in development. Should we list all of them into the article (other sources will be required, not only milken institute). Ckfasdf (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to see a general statement (no lists or table) about only those vaccine candidates that reach a Phase I trial. There are numerous stringent hurdles to clear to test a drug candidate in humans (toxicity, dose-response in animals, ethics approval, staffing and recruiting, financing or partnering with a pharma, among others), and the failure rate of vaccines along the whole clinical development path is high - about 88%. We can keep an eye on Milken tracker updates, and other sources identifying human studies in the upcoming weeks/months to assure the article is currrent. --Zefr (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will not add another vaccine candidate on pre-clinical phase. Initially, I plan to list the vaccine based on its' progress (today, it's only pre-clinical or phase 1) and also I have link to sources to those vaccines candidate, but since there are 46 in pre-clinical, I think it's too much to list and maybe overcrowd the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cuba

They are also developing a vaccine which is undergoing clinical trials

Official source: https://www.cigb.edu.cu/optimistas-especialistas-cubanos-con-resultados-de-ensayo-clinico-de-vacuna-contra-sars-cov-2/ (in Spanish)

http://www.radiorebelde.cu/english/news/cuban-vaccine-in-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-20200320/

www.thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2020/03/26/cuban-scientists-on-top-of-a-covid-19-vaccine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Previous coronavirus vaccine efforts

"As of 2020, there is no cure or protective vaccine for SARS that has been shown to be both safe and effective in humans." Is this really the case, though? I just watched Dr. Anthony Fauci say something that would seem to imply otherwise, where the only step still missing is actual production. I found the existing references unconvincing: the Future Medicine reference dates back to 2012, and the UK NHS article might not have been updated for new developments short of actual production. And I found some other indirect sources that seem to indicate a vaccine has been found. Since I did not find any direct authoritative source that explicitly contradicts the statement, I am reluctant to update the article. Any thoughts? — RFST (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That something "would seem to imply" something does not qualify as a reliable source for the affirmative statement that the implied thing exists. If there is a reliable source stating that a SARS vaccine was found to be safe and effective (not just "developed", because things can be developed that don't end up working), then we can update the existing references. BD2412 T 17:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that I meant "thoughts" about the issue, not about whether this evidence is enough to update the article (it isn't). — RFST (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Please add after

"Inovio Pharmaceuticals said that it is developing a DNA-based vaccination in collaboration with a Chinese firm, announcing plans for human clinical trials in the summer of the Northern Hemisphere of 2020.[36]"

and before

"In early March, the Canadian government announced Can$275 million in funding for 96 research projects on medical countermeasures against COVID-19, including numerous vaccine candidates at Canadian universities,[37][38] such as the International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac), University of Saskatchewan, aiming to start human testing in 2021.[39] In March, the Canadian government announced Can$192 million specifically for developing a COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to establish a national "vaccine bank" of several new vaccines that could be used if another coronavirus outbreak occurs.[38]"

the following information:

- On 8 February 2020 the laboratory "OncoGen" in Romania published a paper on the design of an vaccine-design with a technology "similar to the one used in cancer neoantigen vaccination therapy" against COVID-19.(1).It is a "personalized vaccinomics strategy" (2). On 25 March the head of the research institute announced that they finalized the synthesis of the vaccine and that they were beginning the tests (3). 

sources: (1) "Design of an Epitope-Based Synthetic Long Peptide Vaccine to Counteract the Novel China Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" : https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202002.0102/v1?fbclid=IwAR0UW6BKPhr2p9z8NoMCHK-DiALCjLoTMx32Jq5Q1cV7s0GQCNZT8nl0V5o (2) OncoGen researchers propose personalized vaccinomics strategy for the novel China coronavirus : https://oncogen.ro/oncogen-vaccine-design-for-coronavirus/ (3) "Vaccin împotriva noului coronavirus", în teste la OncoGen Timișoara : http://www.romania-actualitati.ro/vaccin-impotriva-noului-coronavirus-in-teste-la-oncogen-timisoara-136664 Iontschi (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I did not include the 2nd sentence since it was a title of the article of the source provided. I also paraphrased the quote in 1st sentence. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 20:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Pakistan to Pre-Clinical efforts

Pakistan constituted a scientific committee to coordinate the development of a vaccine. https://www.technologytimes.pk/2020/03/26/federal-minister-constitutes-committee-develop-covid-19-vaccine/

https://www.brecorder.com/2020/03/25/583322/pakistan-constitutes-scientific-task-force-to-develop-covid-19-vaccine/ https://twitter.com/fawadchaudhry/status/1242448195306782720/photo/1

Advocateinadequate (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Trial to add

There's another trial now in progress, APN01. I'd add it to the article myself, but I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'd prefer it if someone else could do it. —Nightstallion 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a treatment trial, so it doesn't belong on this page. I'm only keeping up with this page, sorry, so I hope someone else can direct this info to the right page. Stay well, everyone! Hildabast (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

See, that's how little I know, I didn't even read it closely enough to realise that distinction. I'll try to shove it over to the proper page instead. :) —Nightstallion 08:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

BD2412 reverted my excision of some content here. This is the section "Reports of preclinical research". BD2412 said, "This removal of content seems indiscriminate. Let's discuss item by item, rather than removing materials wholesale".

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and has epistemological standards for content about human healthcare at WP:MEDRS. That section is just an indiscriminate list of newspaper or university website reports of work that's started. (My removal was not indiscriminate. I checked each line to see what the sourcing was.) It fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEDRS and WP:PROSE for that matter. If people want to liveblog every mention of a vaccine study starting, they are free to do so, but not on Wikipedia. That's not how Wikipedia works: we have community-agreed standards and we can't just drop them because some editors feel like it (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). We're trying to write an encyclopaedia that is reliable and useful to readers. We summarise high-quality secondary content. Let's try doing that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than just throwing out initials, let's examine exactly what they mean. WP:NEWS has four components: first, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories", which none of these are. Second:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Content regarding the earliest efforts to counter a global pandemic is of enduring notability, and this is not written in news style, nor are these routine announcements, nor are we treating "breaking news" differently from any other content. Third, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be". We are not particularly covering individuals here. Fourth, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are". Again, we are not covering individuals, and the events covered are notable, as they are initial efforts reported in third-party reliable sources to counter a global pandemic. WP:MEDRS is only applicable to biomedical claims; if we start getting into the specific efficacy of asserted vaccines, then it will become relevant. WP:PROSE is about style, not content. If you would prefer a different presentation, feel free to propose one. BD2412 T 20:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of what you've said there is mistaken.

Content regarding the earliest efforts to counter a global pandemic is of enduring notability Agreed. It is of enduring notability that vaccine research has begun. Each and every press release of a vaccine study is not of enduring notability.

this is not written in news style It's a bullet pointed list of announcements: that's a news feed, not an encyclopaedia article.

the events covered are notable The vaccine that works will be notable. The dozens of studies that don't go anywhere aren't.

reported in third-party reliable sources to counter a global pandemic Only because I cleaned up the list by removing those items with only primary sources! And most of what's left is regurgitating press releases: it's not exactly the secondary analysis we look for on Wikipedia.

WP:MEDRS is only applicable to biomedical claims; if we start getting into the specific efficacy of asserted vaccines, then it will become relevant. No, WP:MEDRS clearly covers biomedical content and this is biomedical content. MEDRS states, "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." It does not say it only applies to "biomedical claims".

WP:PROSE is about style, not content. Indeed. As well as the content violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS, the presentation is problematic. We should be working to move away from a bullet pointed list.

If you would prefer a different presentation, feel free to propose one. My proposal is to cut this section entirely and concentrate on making the rest of the article better. I suggest using MEDRS-compliant sources like doi:10.1002/jmv.25707, doi:10.12932/AP-200220-0772, doi:10.1080/21645515.2020.1735227 and doi:10.14744/ejmo.2020.12220. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Notability is defined by coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources. Furthermore, notability is the standard for articles, not mentions of content within articles, which need only meet a lesser standard of noteworthiness. You claim that you "cleaned up the list by removing those items with only primary sources", but one of the items you removed was cited to The Guardian - a green-light source identified by Wikipedia as a high-level source for independent reporting. Is The Guardian "regurgitating press releases"? Have you requested {{better sources}} for any claim asserted? I find this critique implausible as to the deletion of a large block of content with numerous citations, and I restate my suggestion from my edit summary that removal of these points should be considered on an item-by-item basis. BD2412 T 21:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been some confusion here. I initially boldly removed the whole section; that edit was reverted. I then removed a number of individual lines on an item-by-item basis because they only had primary sourcing. Those edits stuck. When I referred to removing the material based on only primary sourcing, I was referring to those edits that stuck. I hope that clarifies. Apologies for the slow reply. Bondegezou (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Jenniffer Haller" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jenniffer Haller. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Jeniffer Haller" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeniffer Haller. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 23:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

99-year old BCG is the COVID-19 vaccine.

Newest publication: Almost ten-fold (9.6x) increase in COVID-19 mortality observed among countries without a BCG regime, versus thoroughly vaccinated countries:

https://www.urotoday.com/recent-abstracts/covid-19-and-genitourinary-cancers/120475-bcg-vaccination-policies-make-a-ten-times-difference-in-covid-19-incidence-mortality-new-study.html

BCG vaccination policies make a ten times difference in COVID-19 incidence, mortality: New study from UK and US. 2020 Apr 06 94.21.121.60 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• It is an interesting development, but there are still tens of thousands of deaths in BCG-vaccination countries. BD2412 T 23:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree. And there are trials underway among healthcare workers to see if it can help, but it's still a BCG vaccine, not a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps mention of it belongs under prevention on the main Covid-19 page? Hildabast (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would still think the association is a bit tenuous. A second study or source would go a long way here. BD2412 T 17:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Here are the sources of information I've been using on this. For background on BCG and trained immunity/heterologous effects: PMID 25573107. For background on BCG vaccine for Covid-19, including discussion about the clinical trials that are underway: Science. Trial register entry for the Dutch trial in health care workers. Announcement of the Australian trial in health care workers. Hildabast (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I think this is sufficient to mention here. BD2412 T 15:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree it's enough, but does it belong here? It's not a SARS-Cov-2 vaccine. Hildabast (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
          • It is, however, a vaccine that may have some efficacy in reducing the impact of COVID-19. I would mention it somewhere on this page, in passing, and develop it further elsewhere. BD2412 T 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
            • OK, done - I added a sub-category in clinical trials for "non-specific vaccine", as that meshes with the Wiki page on heterologous effects. Hildabast (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Using (extra doses) of polio vaccine to boost immunity against COVID-19

I heard some experts are thinking about giving Polio vaccines to healthcare professionals. To boost immunity, which could theoretically protects against COVID-19.

I didn't find any information about this in the internet. I don't even know are they thinking about "Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV)" or something else.

I'm not an expert in any vaccines, so I probably didn't know which search terms to use in Google or Pubmed.

--ee1518 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I am finding lots of articles about how COVID-19 vaccine efforts are being inspired by the success of the polio vaccine, but none about the use of polio vaccines to protect against COVID-19. BD2412 T 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

In the row for "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19" - change "England" to "England, United Kingdom". This ensures the format of the other vaccine candidates is matched (mentioning the sovereign state in the location). Mjsa (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Mjsa:  done without link for consistency. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Research by Chen Wei team

I have created Chen Wei (medical scientist) § COVID-19 vaccine with some information about the vaccine on trial developed by Chen Wei team. According to the sources, it is one of the first to enter Phase I, and it might have been the first to enter Phase II. I'm not sure to which section of this article it belongs to though. --MarioGom (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Tracking progress

The section on preclinical research below is now either outdated or too selective among the 115+ vaccine candidates in development (CEPI, as of early April), so I am moving it here to archive. The Milken Institute tracker - updated a few times per week with publicly available sources in the right column - is the most dynamic, current landscape of vaccine candidates. I'm substituting a table of those candidates scheduled for 2020 starts of human safety testing (Phase I trial) in the article, and invite editors to participate in keeping it current. Zefr (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Preclinical research listed as of 20 April 20

• Around 24 January 2020 in Australia, the University of Queensland announced that it is investigating the potential of a molecular clamp vaccine that would genetically modify viral proteins in order to stimulate an immune reaction.
• Around 24 January 2020 in Canada, the International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac) at the University of Saskatchewan announced the commencement of work on a vaccine, aiming to start human testing in 2021.
• Vaccine development projects were announced at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on 26 January 2020, and the University of Hong Kong on 28 January.
• Around 29 January 2020, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, led by Hanneke Schuitemaker, announced that it had begun work on developing a vaccine. Janssen is co-developing an oral vaccine with its biotechnology partner, Vaxart. On 18 March 2020, Emergent BioSolutions announced a manufacturing partnership with Vaxart to develop the vaccine.
• On 8 February 2020, the laboratory OncoGen in Romania published a paper on the design of a vaccine with similar technology to the one used for cancer neoantigen vaccination therapy. On 25 March the head of the research institute announced that they had finalized the synthesis of the vaccine and were beginning the tests.
• On 27 February 2020, a Generex subsidiary company, NuGenerex Immuno-Oncology, announced they were beginning a vaccine project to create an Ii-Key peptide vaccine against COVID-19. They wanted to produce a vaccine candidate that could be tested in humans "within 90 days."
• On 5 March 2020, Washington University in St. Louis announced its projects to develop a vaccine.
• On 5 March 2020, the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, both in western Maryland, announced they were working on a vaccine.
• Around 10 March 2020, Emergent Biosolutions announced that it had teamed with Novavax Inc. in the development and manufacture of a vaccine. The partners further announced plans for preclinical testing and a Phase I clinical trial by July 2020.
• On 12 March 2020, India's Health Ministry announced they are working with 11 isolates, and that even on a fast track it would take at least around one-and-a-half to two years to develop a vaccine.
• On 12 March 2020, Medicago, a biotechnology company in Quebec City, Quebec, reported development of a coronavirus-like particle under partial funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The vaccine candidate is in laboratory research, with human testing planned for July or August 2020.
• On 16 March 2020, the European Commission offered an €80 million investment in CureVac, a German biotechnology company, to develop a mRNA vaccine. Earlier that week, The Guardian reported that the US President Donald Trump had offered CureVac "'large sums of money' for exclusive access to a Covid-19 vaccine", against which the German government protested.
• On 17 March 2020, American pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced a partnership with German company BioNTech to jointly develop a mRNA-based vaccine. mRNA-based vaccine candidate BNT162, currently in pre-clinical testing with clinical trials expected to begin in April 2020.
• In Italy on 17 March 2020, Takis Biotech, an Italian biotech company announced they will have pre-clinical testing results in April 2020 and their final vaccine candidate could begin human testing by fall.
• In France on 19 March 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced a US$4.9 million investment in a COVID-19 vaccine research consortium involving the Institut Pasteur, Themis Bioscience (Vienna, Austria), and the University of Pittsburgh, bringing CEPI's total investment in COVID-19 vaccine development to US$29 million. CEPI's other investment partners for COVID-19 vaccine development are Moderna, Curevac, Inovio, Novavax, the University of Hong Kong, the University of Oxford, and the University of Queensland.
• On 20 March 2020, Russian health officials announced that scientists have begun animal testing of six different vaccine candidates.
• Imperial College London researchers announced on 20 March 2020 that they are developing a self-amplifying RNA vaccine for COVID-19. The vaccine candidate was developed within 14 days of receiving the sequence from China.
• In late March, the Canadian government announced C$275 million in funding for 96 research projects on medical countermeasures against COVID-19, including numerous vaccine candidates at Canadian companies and universities, such as the Medicago and University of Saskatchewan initiatives. Around the same time, the Canadian government announced C$192 million specifically for developing a COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to establish a national "vaccine bank" of several new vaccines that could be used if another coronavirus outbreak occurs.
• On 2 April 2020, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine reported on testing of PittCoVacc, a possible COVID-19 vaccine in mice, stating that "MNA delivered SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit vaccines elicited potent antigen-specific antibody responses [in the mice] that were evident beginning 2 weeks after immunization."
• In Canada on 16 April 2020, the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy announced design of a DNA-based vaccine candidate as a possible nasal spray. Using bacteriophages, the DNA will be designed to replicate inside human bacteria to produce harmless virus-like particles, which may stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

References

Requested move 13 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this move. buidhe 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 vaccine → COVID-19 vaccine development – The new title would take into consideration the concerns from the previous RM about the current hypotheticality of the vaccine, while also remaining concise and becoming consistent with COVID-19 drug development. "Development" rather than "research" addresses any potential concerns (now or in the near future) that efforts have moved beyond just research and into development. Retaining "COVID-19" is consistent with the recent consensensus on COVID-19 article name protocol. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as nom. I don't think the current title is terrible, but this would be a mild improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and for consistency with titles for every other vaccine, including those for which variations are constantly in development (e.g. the Influenza vaccine). BD2412 T 04:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also going to request that the closing administrator put a six month moratorium on move requests for this article. This is the second move request in a short period of time, largely duplicative of the first. Further requests along this line in the near term are only likely to waste time. BD2412 T 17:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose i don't agree lower important to move this name. As per WP:CONCISE. 37.111.202.104 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — 37.111.202.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BD2412 T 13:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support since "COVID-19 vaccine development" would imply no usable vaccine exists yet, which is currently the case. Saves a click. 24.53.240.117 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — 24.53.240.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BD2412 T 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Title carries a false implication that a vaccine exists. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What do you think was administered to those 45 people in Seattle? BD2412 T 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. At least until a successful vaccine is developed. The title can always be changed when/if that ever happens. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose again. There is no mass distributed vaccine, but there are plenty of potential candidates, one of which might be the final vaccine. "Development" suggests that it's not currently being tested._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't testing a phase of development? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This same request was already closed less than a month ago with the consensus to keep the article title the same. I won't go over everything since the previous request already laid out a lot of the arguments but all I'll say is that the title is consistent with other vaccine related articles, such as the currently non-existent HIV vaccine, it's WP:CONCISE, and it makes even less sense to make this request now because as mentioned in the lead, there are now over 100 vaccine candidates in existence with multiple vaccines already in phase 1 studies. --TheSameGuy (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Consistent with other articles like HIV vaccine as other editors pointed out. Note that "it does not exist", but several vaccines are in clinical trial. --MarioGom (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. I do agree that "COVID-19 vaccine" might suggest that such a vaccine indeed exists. Similar discussions to that effect have been had on what is now Talk:Potential_cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact, even though one of these events have more chance of happening in my opinion ;) – not saying which! One point against inclusion of 'development' would be that once the potential vaccine is developed, the page is no longer really about development, but has always meant to be about the vaccine itself. (or is it?) May I suggest "Potential COVID-19 vaccine"? Bert Macklin (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the name HIV vaccine does not suggest the existence of a safe and effective vaccine. Conciseness is key as mentioned above. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Note I've opened a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Naming guidelines for articles on vaccines and drugs that do not yet exist, since this question exists in similar form for HIV vaccine and other articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose To be consistent will practically all other technologies that are in development including all vaccines (e.g. Universal flu vaccine), High Speed 2, Dyson sphere, Artificial womb etc. D Wells (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that the title "COVID-19 vaccine" does not imply that the vaccine exists. It only implies that it's a topic worth writing about. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• support this would be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Holy cow stop this - nothing has changed in the past week. This is abusing the process to re-request. Red Slash 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Please move this paragraph: BNT162 (BioNTech; Fosun Pharma; Pfizer) RNA April–May to the upper table "Clinical trials started in 2020" cause its now on Phase 1. Source: https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinland-pfalz/mainz/biontech-impfstoff-coronavirus-100.html (German language) OR https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52386012 on paragraph 3 Max042020 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - thanks! Not clear that it has started recruiting, however it is at least as far along as the Oxford trial, which is included in the table. Hildabast (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Marking as answered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The vaccine by SinoVac has entered Phase I trial. Please move it from the table for pre-trial candidates to the table for clinical trials. Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3080929/coronavirus-clinical-trial-begins-third-vaccine-candidate-china

Also another vaccine is approved for clinical trial starting in April. It's another inactivated vaccine candidate developed by the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products under the China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Please enter the candidate in the pre-trial table. Source: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/14/c_138976125.htm and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-drug-treatment-uk-china-astrazeneca-a9463506.html 98.207.237.179 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - added to Ph I-II table. The Sinopharm-Wuhan candidate is not yet listed on the Milken tracker or the WHO candidate list dated 20 Apr 20. Seems reasonable to me that the table of "scheduled" candidates be updated weekly. Zefr (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zefr, for moving the SinoVac candidate to trial table. Note that the vaccine would combine Dynavax’s CpG 1018, the adjuvant contained in U.S. FDA-approved HEPLISAV-B vaccine. Source: http://investors.dynavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dynavax-and-sinovac-announce-collaboration-develop-coronavirus

Wait, looks like the SinoVac + Dyravax's CpG 1018 is another candidate currently in pre-trial, as it is listed separately in WHO's pre-trial candidate list. I guess you guys can help to put it in the pre-trial table.

Actually The Sinopharm-Wuhan (WIV) candidate is already listed both in Milken tracker (#10, page 38) and the WHO candidate list (#3, right above the entry for SinoVac). It's another combined phase1-2 trial, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=52227. Thanks! 98.207.237.179 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Supercomputing section is neither focussed on main topic nor NPOV

The section on supercomputing use appears to be based on press release type material. A lot of the projects referenced are not vaccine related (e.g. they are epidemiology). It irrelevantly mentions that one of the sponsors is a billionaire; assuming the reference to the person is necessary at all, that information should be on on the linked page for the person. It seems to concentrate on commercial organisations (e.g. it doesn't mention the protein folding projects being distributed to volunteers). It is poorly structured, in particular, it is structured by organisations, not by the type of work, and ends up saying the "same sorts of things", to link the type of work, rather than listing them out in full (at the very least this could break if someone adds more things to the defining reference).

On balance, I think the article would be better with the whole section removed. The appropriate place for the information is probably the relevant detailed articles on the particular vaccine projects that use a specific such resource, or in articles on enabling technologies mentioned from the specific pages.

David Woolley (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this, and I note that this information was added and removed once before, as there is no mention of the use of supercomputers to create a vaccine in the sources provided. BD2412 T 15:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If I may ask, where might any computer information related to the vaccine be located? More pertinently, would it be acceptable to create an article on the effects of COVID-19 on computing? Perhaps as a section on Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology? COVID-19 drug development? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, so far as I have seen reported in sources, computers are not playing a different role in COVID-19 vaccine development than they have for any other vaccine. The removed section related to use of supercomputers to develop therapies, which would be covered under COVID-19 drug development, if anywhere. BD2412 T 01:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I have created a new discussion section on the main WikiProject Talk page regarding a course of action. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Milken Institute tracker and other clinical trial updates

The Milken Institute has - as best as I can see - the most frequently updated (at least 2x/week) tracker for all COVID-19 vaccine candidates, a report that had been a thorough, although somewhat awkward, PDF for the past weeks, but is now a dynamic Google spreadsheet, today's version shown here. Presuming it enables viewing of updates in real time, the Milken tracker will be a "live" update source going forward. Wondering what other editors think about using this as a source for tracking progress of vaccine candidates in all stages of development, as it is still awkward to use on a cell phone (or even a widescreen desktop), and its sources are hidden behind another click, but I think it's a substantial resource for keeping an eye on progress. For comparison, the next-best sources are either "draft landscape" of vaccines in development from WHO (often seems out of synch with public information), and occasional tracking reports, such as the April 9 CEPI report which is difficult to judge for its current accuracy. Fyi, there is a new COVID-19 literature tracker from the US National Library of Medicine, called "LitCovid", shown here. Background on why this is relevant, WP:NOW. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that it's a good idea to use a constantly updating file stored on Google Docs to replace a published PDF file from the Milken Institutes own website. There's no way for readers/editors to know if the Google Docs link is official or not and another issue is that because it is editable, the information in the file may no longer back up the claims made in the article. Things may be added, removed, or changed in the document and may not be reflected in the article. Also, I don't know if the file can be edited by anyone with the link but if so, that poses another problem on its own. --TheSameGuy (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there will be another PDF updated with new information - it's too static. The tracker revision as a spreadsheet - which can only be viewed or downloaded offline (cannot be edited publicly) - is described here, where the site says: "It is divided into filterable and sortable tabs, with each tab dedicated to a different area of research: one offers the overarching outlook of all treatments and vaccines, one tracks treatments, one tracks vaccines, and so on. There is also a section where all of the data is collated and visualized via charts and graphs. The document is designed to be explored and organized for easy reference, plus it can be downloaded for offline use." I'm assuming a Google solution was chosen to allow live filters and graphs to display the frequently updated data. Not really another universal solution for such useful online features for worldwide viewing, as best as I can tell. The tracker site also emphasizes that "The tracker is not an endorsement of one approach or treatment over another, but simply a list of treatments and vaccines currently in development," and it provides sources that we're all looking to use for the article. Don't know of any public source that offers all these advantages to view vaccine development. Zefr (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion at Talk:COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Milken_Institute_tracker_and_clinical_trial_updates, I don't support using this or tracking trials in this sort of detail. Let's stick to stuff like the Nature article mentioned, as per WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Under "Clinical trials started in 2020" enter a new entry for "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19" beneath the existing entry. All values are the same as the existing ChAdOx1 entry Phase I/II trial, except change the following on the new entry:

• Phase of trial: 2/3
• Duration: April 2020 to January 2022
• Reference: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001228-32/GB Mjsa (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That is the protocol for the future Phase II-III. As of just 3 weeks ago - 23 April, the Phase I-II had begun, with no safety (Phase I) results reported yet, and no dosing-efficacy results (Phase II), according to this Oxford report. The Phase II-III, when it begins, will likely be preceded by a press release about doses, immunogenicity evidence, more trial sites, and more people (and their locations and virus exposure). Changing the table seems premature at present. Zefr (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not supported by citation, and citation is only Bill Gates speculation anyway

"In the case of COVID-19 specifically, a vaccine efficacy of 70% may be enough to stop the pandemic, but if it has only 60% efficacy, outbreaks may continue, and having efficacy of less than 60% will be a failure to stop the virus.[10]" goes the paragraph in the article. But "We have a bit more wiggle room with efficacy. I suspect a vaccine that is at least 70 percent effective will be enough to stop the outbreak. A 60 percent effective vaccine is useable, but we might still see some localized outbreaks. Anything under 60 percent is unlikely to create enough herd immunity to stop the virus." goes the Gates Notes paragraph. General Student 21 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

First, new talk page topics go to the bottom of the page per WP:TALKNEW. Wikipedia and this article are dynamic documents, so can be edited and given additional sources for any content. The numbers (which are generalized) derive from the history of herd immunity thresholds (HIT) of various epidemics, shown here in the table. The ranges for HIT for respiratory transmission are large, presumably because of numerous variables remaining undefined. Gates has been in the global network of infectious disease science for decades, and is a credible source among international coalitions like CEPI and WHO. Here is another analysis by UK Government scientists confirming the 60% HIT number for COVID-19. If you want to edit the sentence and provide additional sources, go ahead. Zefr (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Unnamed (University of Queensland) 58.173.112.126 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Move vaccine development of Novavax to the upper table cause its now on Phase 1. Source: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368988?term=novavax&draw=2&rank=23 Max042020 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks. Zefr (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

create new challenge studies page?

Shouldn't there be a wikipedia page specifically devoted to challenge trials/studies? I am particularly interested in the history of this phenomenon, but a general article should obviously cover all the usual relevant discussions... 2001:8F8:1623:4EBA:287C:36B7:CE20:5878 (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)R.E.D.

    Yes, there absolutely should be, as soon as possible. It always was an important topic, and never more so than since the May 6th 2020 WHO "Key Criteria" for challenge trials publication (more or less officially approving HCT for the pandemic virus) which might merit an article of its own, actually. General Student 21 (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
          Here's a link to the WHO page:

https://www.who.int/ethics/publications/key-criteria-ethical-acceptability-of-covid-19-human-challenge/en/General Student 21 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Another reason to create a new challenge studies page is that not all challenge studies are directly related to any vaccine. For example, in the WHO page linked to above by me, approval (such as it is) is given also to challenge studies for studying the risks posed by infected individuals which I take to mean transmission. Here's a quote: "Challenge studies are also used to study processes of infection and immunity from their inception (5). They could thus be used to (a) validate tests for immunity to SARS-CoV-2, (b) identify correlates of immune protection, and (c) investigate the risks of transmission posed by infected individuals(4, 10). Such findings could significantly improve the overall public health response to the pandemic. This document aims to provide guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policy-makers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining key criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable." In my view this is extremely important information and I think it belongs somewhere in Wikipedia. If not in a new challenge studies page then maybe in a new page devoted to the WHO PDF that I am quoting from. It is marks a watershed in medical history, doesn't it? What do you think? General Student 21 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have started Human challenge study. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hooray! Well done. General Student 21 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

CBS News story on vaccine

What can we do with this and where does it go in the list?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is more news on the interim status of the Moderna Phase I trial than a conclusive result. Here is a fuller account, which does indicate the Moderna vaccine candidate is inducing people to make antibodies, even at the lowest dose. For the article, I don't think we should be reporting on interim results for a process. 50% of vaccine candidates fail in Phase I, as discussed in the article. There are reports that Moderna is preparing to begin Phase II studies for dose and efficacy in people exposed to COVID-19, but there is no report of a Phase II trial yet at clinicaltrials.gov. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I knew it was an interim result when I heard it, but it seems a shame not to have a progress report. Though the story I actually heard said the next phase was scheduled for July.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Our "progress report" will be showing Moderna in Phase II "green" in the table. There will be a lot of interim trial news from different companies with candidates in Phase I-II and starting Phase III in the coming weeks. Should there be another column in the table to check antibody response? Zefr (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be reporting this kind of thing at all: it's not a trial report, it's media promotion, and the company's share price going up shows what this kind of thing might be about, in my opinion, and it's not an interpretation of the results that can be verified. (I'm currently hunting out what results reporting there has been on all vaccines for a blog post, and when I have that list, I'll bring it here some way.) Hildabast (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

CanSino Phase I report on Ad5-nCoV candidate

With respect to the above discussion on reporting the results of a Phase I vaccine trial before we update the article, CanSino provided the template of results today with this report in The Lancet. This is the detail for safety and immunogenicity needed to advance a vaccine candidate into Phase II trials. The CanSino authors stated: "All of these vaccine platforms have advantages and disadvantages, and it is too soon to predict which will be more successful. Our study suggests that there is potential for further investigation of the Ad5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine for prevention of COVID-19." [User:Zefr|Zefr]] (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

More doubts than celebration of success, according to this STAT report. One vaccine expert said on CNN, paraphrasing: "with these results and it was my vaccine candidate, I'd abandon development." Zefr (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Oxford ChAdOx1 Vaccine in Phase II/III Trials

The Oxford Vaccine is now in Phase II/III trials with up to 10,260 participants, cf. http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials and https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/participate-oxford. Please update the table in the article. --Allegutennamen (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the Oxford candidate is among the most promising and their trial is getting deserved worldwide publicity, I think we have to cross-reference an announcement from the university with other sources closely watching the progress of vaccines. I read those two sites as public announcements and have seen the TV reports to begin screening for recruitment, but without actually having announced results to date or having started the Phase II-III trial. Does the Oxford vaccine produce a sufficient antibody response? We don't know that yet, and it seems unlikely a Phase III trial would be launched without conclusive evidence of antibody production. Oxford registered their trial with clinicaltrials.gov shown here which has a tab for "Results posted" (none shown yet), likely meaning the trial results of Phase I-II haven't been completed or released - the typical step before advancing to larger trials, especially for a vaccine which must show the key effect of stimulating immunogenicity. News this week was that the UK government had invested $79 million in the Oxford candidate and the US BARDA program had paid AstraZeneca - the manufacturing partner for the Oxford vaccine candidate - $1 billion to produce sufficient vaccine supply for the USA, all in advance of completing the clinical studies. All of this money pouring in to a candidate not yet proven to produce a robust antibody response. And history shows 86-90% of infectious disease vaccine candidates fail in clinical evaluation.

For cross-referencing, no other trackers show results for Phase I-II or the start of a Phase II-III Oxford trial: Milken, updated 21 May, London School HTM, updated 18 May, BioRender, updated 20 May, BioWorld, updated 19 May, and WHO, updated 17 May, all show the Oxford trial in Phase I-II, indicating an analysis report is likely pending before the green light for the larger trial. There will be many Phase I trials concluding soon. I suggest we remain vigilant and skeptical for key results on safety and antibody response, and cross-check with trackers, before entering new information in the article. Zefr (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The much awaited press release is here. It now appears that Phase II/III human trials are in recruitment phase before the Phase I/II results will be available, this could very much be because safety has been ascertained and a wider sample is needed to get an efficacy signal. The European Clinical Trials Register notes this trial is now "ongoing". Mjsa (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Mjsa - a concern with this edit is that Oxford is not obligated to reveal the results of the Phase I-II trial (they are a "semi-private" organization, with no shareholders demanding accountability, and apparently no obligation to publish their initial results on the vaccine candidate), and Oxford is not following the typical process of publishing the status of safety, immune response (levels of neutralizing antibodies, % of participants who produced strong immune responses), and how they arrived at the vaccine doses shown at Clinicaltrials.gov. The main objection is that the expanded trial is not recruiting yet, but on a level of logical, expected steps in clinical research, i.e., publishing results of the early-stage trial before moving sequentially to the next larger stage, the Oxford status seems more of a publicity statement than one of scientific substance. Putting here for discussion among other editors whether the Oxford trial should be moved to the top of the table. Zefr (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope the whole hydroxychloroquine debacle has reminded us of the importance of a WP:MEDRS approach. Copying out press releases fails WP:PRIMARY, let alone WP:MEDRS! Let's stick to content that has good scientific validity. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Trial status and differentiation in the table

Most vaccine developers register their trials with Clinicaltrials.gov (CTG), providing a harmonized status report for ongoing trials, although Chinese developers may not, apparently using their own national registry, such as for the Wuhan vero cells candidate here. For those using CTG, a trial advancing from Phase I to II, such as for Moderna edited today, the trial registry is reported as "Recruiting" and has the date of when changed, whereas using the Oxford trial as a different example, the Phase II trial is "not yet recruiting," as of 26 May.

The other differentiating factor between Phase I and II trial status in the table is what has been published about safety and tolerable side effects (where all SARS and MERS vaccine candidates failed), and what initial immunogenicity evidence there is. The CanSino group published their Phase I-II results in The Lancet, whereas the Oxford group has made no such publication yet, even while announcing expansion to a Phase II-III trial. As editors, don't we need evidence from CTG or a peer-reviewed reputable publication to report status in the table? Zefr (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Two CanSino trials in Clinical Trial table

Are the two CanSino trials listed in the table about two different vaccines? AxelBoldt (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There is one CanSino vaccine candidate (Ad5-nCoV, pipeline here). The Phase I is ongoing, with a primary completion date of Dec 2020, while the Phase II is active and not further recruiting. The CanSino candidate is the only one with published Phase I-II results (table columns for "adverse effects" and "immune response"), providing an example and comparison when other candidate results are published. We should discuss if there's a clearer way to have Phase I-II results shown and inevitable differences presented among the candidates succeeding to Phase II (although most are likely to fail in Phase I - "Trial status" discussion above). Zefr (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I think it would be clearer if information about the CanSino vaccine trials were contained in a single row of the table, especially since the table is explicitly about vaccines, not about trials, so one-row-one-vaccine seems more logical. Alternatively, one could turn the first two entries in the first column of the table, which currently have identical content, into a single entry (i.e. one first-column table entry spanning the first two rows). AxelBoldt (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Zefr (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine candidates : template or table

I recently created a template for the vaccine candidates currently in trials. It is the same as the table under Clinical trials started in 2020 section but with minor adjustments. I believe a template would be easier to manage as the list is likely to increase, and could also possibly be used on other articles. If there is consensus, the template could be linked. Opinions requested. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A template seems reasonable, so long as it doesn't become too complex for the average editor to update. BD2412 T 22:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a link at the the top (V.T.E) to view, talk about and edit the template. Most wikipedia editors are familiar with it. It can however be expanded to (View.Talk.Edit) to make things more clear. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 01:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

First impression is that optimal visibility of the table, i.e., making it as simple and informative as possible for general, non-medical users, may well be the most viewed segment of the article. Although more candidate vaccines will soon enter the table as Phase I trial projects, so also will candidates be deleted upon their failure to prove safe without severe side effects or be ineffective in antibody response with initial dosing in Phase I-II trials. This review from the lede reminds that no SARS or MERS vaccine candidates "advanced beyond phase 1 safety studies... and no vaccines have been developed against other human coronaviruses." This analysis reported that more than 90% of vaccine candidates for infectious diseases fail in early-stage trials. It's not clear that other COVID-19 articles would need the full table template, but rather may use "See also" to point readers to the table or other article sections. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr:, Even if candidates fail in trials, they could still be kept in the table to show a historical development of such (Phase I-II) trials, to show how far certain candidates came. Also, templates are not always created to be used on multiple pages, there is no such requirement of that as far my knowledge goes. Almost all pandemic articles for the countries currently have templates regarding case numbers, and only the respective country articles are using the templates. An example this template, is only used in the article for Oman. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 04:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxford ChAdOx1 Vaccine now called AZD1222?

It appears that this one (first known as ChAdOx1 ) is now going by AZD1222 after Oxford partnered with AstraZeneca. Should it be adjusted in the table? I am not going to change it myself due to my lack of knowledge in this area. But I am submitting the following references for examination.

• Not sure how reliable this source, but: "AZD1222 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine". www.precisionvaccinations.com. Retrieved 5 June 2020. The AZD1222 coronavirus vaccine candidate, formerly known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, is made from a virus (ChAdOx1)...
• Press release from AstraZeneca: "AstraZeneca advances response to global COVID-19 challenge as it receives first commitments for Oxford's potential new vaccine". www.astrazeneca.com. Retrieved 5 June 2020. The licensing of the vaccine, formerly ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and now known as AZD1222...
• Example of news article now using AZD1222: Makortoff, Kalyeena (4 June 2020). "AstraZeneca doubles capacity for potential Covid-19 vaccine to 2bn doses". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 June 2020.

Desertborn (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - it is the official new name of the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate vaccine. The money is pouring in to this project, almost certainly the most funded of all the candidates. A rough review of funding history: 1) £20 million from the UK government in April; 2) the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership announced in April, which must have been tens of £ millions; 3) US$1.2 billion paid in advance in May by the US government to secure 300 million doses; 4) £595 million (US$750 million) yesterday from CEPI and GAVI (via the Gates Foundation); 5) a licensing deal announced yesterday with the Serum Institute of India for one billion doses; 6) expenditures to come in future months from the US Operation Warp Speed which chose the Oxford-AZ candidate to study in the US. But this consortium has no obligation to publicly report its status and potential adverse effects of the vaccine, leaving scientists and the public without hard data published under peer-review.

The Precision Vaccinations report stated a quote from Oxford's Adrian Hill: "there’s a 50% chance that we get no result at all": definition of high risk. Awaiting published details of the Ph I-II trial: PV reported that "320 people to date and have been shown to be safe and well-tolerated, although they can cause temporary side effects, such as temperature, headache or a sore arm." Apparently, those adverse effects are not a serious concern, as the Ph II-III appears ready to recruit subjects, but is "not yet recruiting". Zefr (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

added section

added section for possible strategies for eradication of this disease. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, can you please elaborate on why you feel this information is off-topic? The notion of a vaccine implicitly includes eradication of the disease as a long-term goal. as you know, I used a scholarly journal as my main source. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Fineberg article is an op-ed (not a rigorous review) stating rather obvious prevention steps which are already addressed in the main COVID-19 article. It is off-topic for this article because it provides no specific information about a potential vaccine. Zefr (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sinovac's vaccine is called CoronaVac and will start Phase III trial in Brazil

Sinovac’s Vaccine Trial Data Suggest Potential in Virus Defense: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-14/sinovac-s-vaccine-trial-data-suggest-potential-in-virus-defense

Chinese Vaccine Maker Inks Deal in Brazil for Final Testing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-12/chinese-vaccine-maker-inks-deal-in-brazil-for-final-testing "Beijing-based Sinovac Biotech Ltd. is teaming up with Instituto Butantan to conduct the final phase of a three-part human testing of a vaccine it developed against the novel coronavirus, the company said in a statement. A Sinovac spokesman said it will need to obtain regulatory approval in Brazil before conducting the trial. Once approved, Sinovac and Instituto Butantan will kick off the trial involving 9,000 people in July."

Please update the info table, thx! 98.207.237.179 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is still at the news stage (WP:RECENTISM), indicated by the (translated) Sinovac press release that results of the Phase I-II study will be published "as soon as possible" (meaning it will go through peer-review, and may (or may not) be publicly discussed then). The Brazil study is a plan to go into effect in July if the earlier study justifies it.

All the companies evaluating Phase I-II results are "obligated" (if following conventional science) to publish their results of safety, preliminary immunogenicity, and an effective dose before proceeding to Phase III. But it's also evident that most at this stage (e.g., Oxford, Moderna, Sinovac) are clamoring for government and/or investor attention to be leading the race, even without the usual peer scrutiny of publishing as steps are concluded. Note from the Bloomberg article that CanSino plans to run its Phase II-III trial in Canada (where there was much publicity about an imminent trial in Halifax), but the Canadian trial hasn't started because there are further safety studies being done in China (a sign of problems with toxicity, one assumes). Best to remain skeptical at this stage, imo. Zefr (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A few differences between our table and the New York Times list

The New York Times Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker, updated 15 June 2020, shows a few differences to our list. I don't know which one is correct.

Vaccine	Our list	NYT list	CT.gov
Imperial College RNA LNP-nCoVsaRNA	Phase I	Phase I-II
Inovio DNA	Phase I-II	Phase I	Phase I-II, NCT04336410 (Phase I, USA)
Oxford adenovirus	Phase I-II	Phase II/III	Phase I-II, NCT04324606
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Hospital/ Novartis/AAV	missing	preclinical	none
IAVI/Merck vesicular stomatitis virus	missing	preclinical	none
Novavax spike protein	Phase I	Phase I/II	Phase I in Australia, NCT04368988
Clover protein	preclinical	Phase I	Phase I, but not recruiting; NCT04405908
Baylor/Texas Children's Hospital	missing	preclinical	BCG, NCT04348370
University of Queensland/CSL protein	missing	preclinical	Novavax trial site, NCT04368988
Shenzhen Geno-Immune Medical Institute, COVID-19/aAPC	Phase I	missing	Phase I, NCT04299724
Shenzhen Geno-Immune Medical Institute, LV-SMENP-DC	Phase I	missing	Phase I, NCT04276896

Further, some naming issues:

• the NYT lists a Phase I/II trial of two inactivated virus vaccines by Chinese firm Sinopharm, while we list a Phase I/II trial of an unnamed inactivated virus vaccine by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences;
• the NYT lists a Phase I trial of an inactivated virus vaccine by the Institute of Medical Biology at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, while we list a Phase I trial of an unnamed inactivated virus vaccine by the Beijing Institute of Biological Products and Wuhan Institute of Biological Products.

AxelBoldt (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: We have reviewed the various trackers before in this talk page archive, a total of 8, counting the two trackers used in the article (Milken and London School, current refs 7,8), four shown in External links (WHO, Reg Focus, STAT, NYT), BioRender, and BioWorld. A reviewer of vaccine progress might be checking all these as cross-referencing, but choosing WHO, Milken, and London School (see tab "Active trials") can limit the work to those reliably updated mostly on a weekly basis. They still don't all agree on the total number or position of vaccine candidates in different trial stages, which obligates checking ClinicalTrials.gov, a US-based registry that most vaccine developers - even the Chinese - are using, and where there are frequent status reports about trial activity shown as "Recruitment status" in the upper right of each trial designated by a unique NCT number.

Using CT.gov as a guide for the table above: 1) the only mention of "Imperial College" at CT.gov is a trial site of the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial, NCT04324606; 2) Inovio, NCT04336410, is in Phase I in the US, but Phase I-II in South Korea (see ref in article table). Other trial status can be reviewed at ClinicalTrials.gov from the trial numbers in the article table. Zefr (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think when NYT refers to the Imperial College RNA vaccine, they mean LNP-nCoVsaRNA, which we list as Phase I and they as Phase I-II. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Please update your vaccine table, Curevac is now on Phase 1: Source: https://www.curevac.com/news/curevac-receives-regulatory-approval-from-german-and-belgian-authorities-to-initiate-phase-1-clinical-trial-of-its-sars-cov-2-vaccine-candidate Max042020 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - that's a company press release announcing approval to start. At the EU clinical trials site, there is no record yet of the trial beginning to recruit participants. Let us know when a WP:RS source says the trial has begun. Zefr (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Another cool vaccine tracking site

https://www.covid-19vaccinetracker.org/ JuanTamad (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Please update the status of the vaccine trials, using the following NYT link as evidence/verification: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html Wolferal (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wolferal - you could do the work to cross-reference the NYT tracker with those above under "A few differences...", then confirm with the US CT.gov and the EU registry that trials are actually "recruiting", which means they have started (there is considerable inconsistency among trackers). Two conspicuous observations: 1) vaccine developers are using press releases of plans for future trials to be visible publicly among the competition (possibly satisfying investors or geopolitical interests), and 2) only one developer (CanSino) has revealed results on adverse effects, immune response, and effective doses from Phase I-II trials, while the competitors (skeptically) may have no good results to brag about. Rule of thumb in vaccine or drug development: peer-reviewed, published results expose research successes and blemishes, while no publication may indicate absence of success and embarrassment. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ~ Amkgp 💬 16:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh claims to develop vaccine

Dear all, I have found some sources which claim a Bangladeshi company Globe Biotech Limited to develop a vaccine upto preliminary stage. I think it is important to show a developing conuntry like Bangladesh on the race to undertake Coronavirus. Here are some references:

• Somoy News
• Dhaka Tribune
• The Daily Observer
• The Daily Observer

Thank you all. - AdiBhai (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

ICMR/BBIL Covaxin

I removed the following content from the lead section about ICMR/BBIL Covaxin, for which Phase I trials have not even begun:

Indian Council of Medical Research will release the first indigenous COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin in India by 15 August 2020.

References

The content was added by DarpSinghh. I reverted it because adding it to the lead section gives it undue weight, considering that there are other vaccines that are already in Phase III. DarpSinghh, please discuss here with other editors (like Zefr) about whether and where it would be appropriate to add this information in the article, as well as the wording. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AZD1222 Phase of Trial

It is currently listed as Phase I/II. But in looking at the trackers, maybe it needs updated? New York Times tracker listed it "The vaccine is in a Phase II/III trial in England and Phase III trials in Brazil and South Africa." Likewise the Regulatory Focus tracker lists it also as Phase II/III. Only the statnews tracker still lists it as Phase I. Desertborn (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I see this was discussed already above, so nevermind then. I see on clinicaltrials.gov it is not recruiting yet. And I don't see it at all in the EU site. That being said, however, if the trial is in Brazil and South Africa would it even show on either of those? Desertborn (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

True that trackers are recording this Oxford advance in trial phase, but are they only following Oxford publicity? The Oxford trial leaders registered with CT.gov (updated 27 May) (no EU registration, as best as I can tell) which says the Phase I-II is active (can be interpreted as ongoing) with no results reported yet on this trial, and no new registry number or description of a Phase III trial; what's going on? What are the results for toxicity, immune response, effective dose? What vaccine or drug developer moves ahead with a candidate into a high-cost, international Phase III program without bragging about its excellent Phase I-II results? Perhaps Oxford-AZ can do this because they have considerable cash to burn and no board, investors or public pressure demanding full disclosure, while most of the competitor developers are publicly-held companies having legal commitments to disclosure. I'm open to a consensus decision but remaining skeptical, recognizing that most vaccines fail in Phase I-II trials.

We can make an editor-consensus decision and vote on where the Oxford trial stands, and use it as a bellwether for recording future progress on trial status for other vaccine candidates.

Combination of factors about recording in the article an advance to a Phase III trial: 1) at least two reputable trackers giving the same status information; 2) Phase I-II results published in a reputable journal for vaccine safety, immune efficacy, and dose; 3) registration with CT.gov, the EU registry, or Chinese registry for the Phase III trial; 4) registry information should describe the Phase III design and state "recruiting" or "active, not recruiting" (meaning it is full and underway).

@Zefr: I found the EU registry. EudraCT Number 2020-001228-32. It was under the old name ChAdOx1 instead of AZD1222. It shows the trial as Phase II/III with status of ongoing. But I defer to you if this means it has started. Desertborn (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll add, it sure seems like they are recruiting given you can volunteer to participate on their site, and individual locations such as this one even state which groups are recruiting. Given that is their site so note the same as listed on a registry. But the fact that someone can fill out and submit a pre-screening questionnaire does seem like something... Desertborn (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed vote to editors: it is sufficient to record a vaccine developer's progress to a Phase III trial based on press releases and two or more tracker reports.

• Oppose - a developer will submit its Phase III trial to a registry, basing its design on published safety, efficacy, and dose, and announce and date in the registry that it is "recruiting" (all are evidence of organizational, multinational, and expensive financial commitments). We should wait for the hard evidence. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative Support as the Phase III trial is registered in the EU registry and they are clearly recruiting participants. Also in view of 2 of 3 trackers showing it as Phase II/III. My support is tentative since I am still hoping to hear comments from Zefr on the EU registry, in case I am misunderstanding it. Desertborn (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Desertborn - there are 124+ editors watching this article, so the decision about how to describe the status of the Oxford trial should not be left to only you and me (and their own press releases). Oxford-AZ are a respected vaccine team, but may be proceeding to the Phase III trial without the usual peer-reviewed disclosure of whether they have worrisome toxicity and/or insufficient immunogenicity. Not all trackers (and not CT.gov) show them recruiting, but reputable sources - like the WHO and London School - do. It's a mystery to see a cost-heavy trial advanced to testing in thousands of volunteers without knowing and publicly sharing the safety, efficacy, and immunogenic dose for the vaccine candidate, which I fear may be a dud (in the past, 90% of infectious disease vaccine candidates die in Phase I-II, and there are no licensed coronavirus vaccines). I'm open to consensus of the editor community, which is why I posed the vote. Zefr (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

zefr Thanks, and I agree with you on this talk page being the place to discuss. It's just I didn't want to vote until hearing your opinion of the EU registry addition, since you seem knowledgeable on this subject. It appears that you prefer to have the results from Phase I peer reviewed and available, which makes sense. Thank you for sharing as that is what I was wondering, if you still felt the same or not. Frankly I am thinking of changing my vote but I'll wait for others to weigh in. Desertborn (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

please add wikiquotes link

Please add WQ links:

Will-SeymoreIII (talk)

•  Done BD2412 T 23:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

This is a redirect. I requesting remove protection. 31.148.165.56 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

BNT162 - Phase I/II results in pre-print interim report

Looks like a pre-print is out of the Phase I/II report from the BNT162 (BioNTech, Fosun Pharma, Pfizer) candidate. Obviously we must wait for peer-review to update our table. But I am leaving the link here in case anyone is interested in reviewing the pre-print results.

• Mulligan, Mark J; Lyke, Kirsten E; Kitchin, Nicholas; Absalon, Judith; Gurtman, Alejandra; Lockhart, Stephen P.; Neuzil, Kathleen; Raabe, Vanessa; Bailey, Ruth; Swanson, Kena A.; Li, Ping; Koury, Kenneth; Kalina, Warren; Cooper, David; Fonter-Garfias, Camila; Shi, Pei-Yong; Tuereci, Ozlem; Tompkins, Kristin R.; Walsh, Edward E.; Frenck, Robert; Falsey, Ann R.; Dormitzer, Philip R.; Gruber, Gruber; Sahin, Ugur; Jansen, Kathrin U. (30 June 2020). "Phase 1/2 Study to Describe the Safety and Immunogenicity of a COVID-19 RNA Vaccine Candidate (BNT162b1) in Adults 18 to 55 Years of Age: Interim Report". medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2020.06.30.20142570. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

Desertborn (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

--Deepak7217 (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Deepak7217 16:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC) --Deepak7217 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Deepak7217

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

1. Please add/modify: mRNA vaccine in Phase 1 trial by Walvax

The name of the vaccine is ARCoV.

The third participant in the development and trial of the vaccine is Suzhou Abogen Biosciences.

Refs: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-29/China-s-first-COVID-19-mRNA-vaccine-starts-phase-I-clinical-trial-RILRptOyLS/index.html

We should cross-reference trial status for whether the trial is planned vs. announced as ready vs. registered vs. recruiting, and that trial recruiting is cross-referenced by three or more trackers. The Walvax trial isn't listed by the London School or CT.gov. Zefr (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking you guys to update trial status, which is already listed as in phase 1 in the list here. I'm asking to update the name of the vaccine under trial, which is ARCov, and to include the third participant, which is Suzhou Abogen Biosciences. 98.207.237.179 (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Both vaccines developed by Sinovac and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca have entered phase 3 trial

ref: WHO's DRAFT landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines – 7 July 2020

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines

98.207.237.179 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oxford-AZ status is Ph II-III, whereas Sinovac has announced plans for a Ph III trial in Brazil, but is not yet recruiting. 00:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• New York Times is reporting that Dimas Tadeu Covas, director of Instituto Butantan in Sao Paolo, said ~600,000 people signed up for the Sinovac Phase III trial just 24 hours after the recruiting process went live this week. . Should we update to show Ph III in the vaccine table?104.243.98.96 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

DNA vaccine

I read this article in the NYTimes about the Inovio DNA vaccine candidate. Can we add its information here?

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/science/vaccine-coronavirus-inovio.html

• 22:39, 2020 June 13 174.196.202.10 (talk)

(documentation: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC))

COVID-19 vaccine is called covaxin in India

Please include the name covaxin in this article, which is synonymous to COVID-19 vaccine in India. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

CanSino in talks for COVID-19 vaccine Phase III trial overseas, Phase II results published in Lancet

No action for now, but I wanted to put this into the talk page so that it gets appropriate attention.

In early July, CanSino Biologics began talks with Russia, Brazil, Chile and Saudi Arabia to launch a Phase III trial of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine, with the company planning to recruit 40,000 participants for the test. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-vaccine/chinas-cansino-in-talks-for-covid-vaccine-phase-iii-trial-overseas-idUSKCN24C0HS Albertaont (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Phase 2 results have been published: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31605-6/fulltextAlbertaont (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cansino Phase 2 Results published in Lancet; request to update main table

Can someone put CanSino PH 2 results into the main table, it has just been published to Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31605-6/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertaont (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - here. Zefr (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 clinical trials at UCSF

• COVID-19 clinical trials at UCSF: 17 in progress, 9 open to eligible people
• University of California, San Francisco

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

None of those appear to be a vaccine. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)