Talk:COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Add Sinopharm phase III trial

It is listed as "Recruiting" on ChiCTR and appears on the UN list of candidate vaccines. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid_19 Vaccine : Russian successfully completes clinical trials.

Russia has become the first nation to complete clinical trials of COVID_19 vaccine on humans. The results have proven the medication’s effectiveness, the media reported on Sunday July 12 2020.

• https://apnablog.net/2020/07/covid-19-vaccine-russian-successfully-completes-clinical-trials/

The clinical trials of the world’s first coronavirus vaccine on volunteers at Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University has been successfully completed. Chief researcher Elena Smolyarchuk of Sechenov University, told Russian news agency TASS on Sunday that the human trials for the vaccine have been completed at the university and they will be discharged soon.

According to a report the research has been completed and it proved that the vaccine is safe. The volunteers will be discharged on July 15 and July 20.

“Sechenov University in a pandemic situation acted not only as an educational institution but also as a scientific and technological research center. It is also able to participate in the creation of such important and complex products as drugs. We worked with this vaccine, starting with preclinical studies and protocol development, and clinical trials are currently underway,” Tarasov noted.

The first stage of research on the vaccine at Sechenov University involved a group of 18 volunteers. And the second group involved 20 volunteers. All volunteers will remain in isolation in a hospital for 28 days. Earlier, results of the coronavirus vaccine tests performed on a group of volunteers in Russia showed that they were developing immunity to the coronavirus.

“The data obtained by The Gamalei National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, proves that volunteers of the first and second groups are forming an immune response after injections of the vaccine against the corona virus,” according to an earlier statement from the Russian Defense Ministry.

There are at least 21 vaccines currently under key trials, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The overall number of global COVID-19 cases was nearing 12.7 million. The deaths have increased to more than 564,000, according to Johns Hopkins University in the US. As of Sunday morning, the total number of cases stood at 12,681,472, while the fatalities rose to 564,420. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak7217 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"completed clinical trials" is misleading. They only completed "phase I" at best. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The vaccine was widely used in China already?

Beijing approves experimental Covid-19 vaccine for use in Chinese military. I am not sure though how widely it was used at the moment (need RS). But this is not a trial. Should we make new section about the actual usage of the vaccine? My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) - Phase 1 results

BBC article today: Gallagher, James (20 July 2020). "Oxford coronavirus vaccine can train immune system". BBC News. I can't find the actual results or even a preprint, so just leaving this here for now.

• "Levels of T cells peaked 14 days after vaccination and antibody levels peaked after 28 days."
• Side-effects: "70% of people on the trial developed either fever or headache."

Desertborn (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually it appears the results are out and in the Lancet. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Desertborn (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be great to get these results on the page asap (extended protection means that a smaller number of editors can do this). Interesting the Oxford vaccine used a meningitis vaccine as a control, this was used over a standard placebo to stop patients realising they were in the active vaccine group Genesis12~enwiki (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I just added the results to the main page. Desertborn (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Critical point raised today by virologist, Paul Offit: "the AZ-Oxford paper should never have been published; it's too preliminary and the main conclusions derived from small numbers of participants." (slightly paraphrased). Inspecting the main immunogenicity results in Figs. 3-6, the paper's main 'positive evidence' for the different immune response measures came from a booster participant pool of just 10 subjects. Where's the rest of the data for 533 people, and was there something more negative to disguise from those participants? AZ-Oxford are flush with cash to continue into Ph III, and don't have stockholders demanding transparency. Further critique from The Hill here. Safety and immune effects of the vaccine candidate in people over age 55 were not studied, and there was no indication about whether the immune response in the 10 individuals receiving two shots would last more than 8 weeks. Overall, gives a dubious outlook on this candidate. Zefr (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro sentence - hypothetical

Suggest removing "hypothetical" from intro sentence:

A COVID‑19 vaccine is a hypothetical vaccine in development against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19).

I like hypothetical because it implies there is no guarantee that a vaccine will be developed anytime soon, but "in development" also suggests this. What do you think?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "hypothetical" is needed because "in development" does not convey the possibility that it might never happen. If a new Porsche model is in development you can be sure the model will eventually materialise provided only the manufacturer sees the project through to completion. With a vaccine the situation seems less certain. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, seeing this after editing. I support removing "hypothetical" given recent successes in animal and human trials. I don't think omitting the word indicates that it is inevitable. In the above example, Porche could certainly cancel the project before development is complete. In this case though, there are 150 different models in development from dozens of manufacturers. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fase III

Hello, your table reports only one vaccine in phase III (with orange colour) as of 24 July 2020. On this source, it says they are three.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/07/21/brazil-set-to-test-chinese-coronavirus-vaccine.html

Sinovac would be one of the three, but it doesn't say which one is the third one.

151.36.170.71 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinovac Phase III edit request on 24 July 2020

The phase of trial in the table of 'COVID‑19: candidate vaccines in Phase I–III trials' for the vaccines of Sinovac, Beijing Institute of Biological Products and Wuhan Institute of Biological Products is wrong. According with the most recent publication of WHO, they are all in the Phase III: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines 2A01:388:555:150:7C6B:1290:E52E:5246 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here i found information about 4 phase tests at 24 July, includng Oxford already mentioned in the Wikipedia article as such. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html 151.36.170.71 (talk) 10:52, 24 July 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinovac Phase III trials in Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia

Associated Press reports Brazilian health authorities on July 21st started a three-month test of a coronavirus vaccine produced by Chinese pharmaceutical company Sinovac. Dimas Covas, president of the Butantan Institute coordinating the study, said at a press conference that if the vaccine proves safe and effective, Brazil would receive 120 million doses from China at the beginning of next year, which will allow 30 million Brazilians to be vaccinated. The Sinovac tests on 9,000 volunteers, all health professionals, in six Brazilian states, are being coordinated by Butantan, a Sao Paulo state scientific institute that has been producing vaccines for over a century.

Reuters reports Bangladesh’s state medical research agency has approved a third-phase trial of a potential COVID-19 vaccine developed by Sinovac Biotech. The trial, to be conducted by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh to begin next month and involve 4,200 volunteers.

Channel News Asia reports Indonesia's human trials on a potential COVID-19 vaccine are due to start as part of a collaboration between state-owned pharmaceutical company Bio Farma and Sinovac. Phase 3 clinical trials will begin on Aug 11 and will involve 1,620 volunteers aged between 18 and 59. Half of the participants will receive the vaccine over a six-month period, while the rest will receive a placebo, he said, noting 800 volunteers had been signed up so far.

Currently showing as Phase III on 3 trackers:

1. WHO Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines.

2. Vaccine Centre at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

3. Milken Institute

Not enough cross-confirmation; not yet recruiting, same here. No peer-reviewed publication on Ph I-II safety, doses, immune response. Zefr (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we using peer-review on Ph I-II as the definitive gating item?Albertaont (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sinovac Phase III trials in Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia

Associated Press reports Brazilian health authorities on July 21st started a three-month test of a coronavirus vaccine produced by Chinese pharmaceutical company Sinovac. Dimas Covas, president of the Butantan Institute coordinating the study, said at a press conference that if the vaccine proves safe and effective, Brazil would receive 120 million doses from China at the beginning of next year, which will allow 30 million Brazilians to be vaccinated. The Sinovac tests on 9,000 volunteers, all health professionals, in six Brazilian states, are being coordinated by Butantan, a Sao Paulo state scientific institute that has been producing vaccines for over a century.

Reuters reports Bangladesh’s state medical research agency has approved a third-phase trial of a potential COVID-19 vaccine developed by Sinovac Biotech. The trial, to be conducted by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh to begin next month and involve 4,200 volunteers.

Channel News Asia reports Indonesia's human trials on a potential COVID-19 vaccine are due to start as part of a collaboration between state-owned pharmaceutical company Bio Farma and Sinovac. Phase 3 clinical trials will begin on Aug 11 and will involve 1,620 volunteers aged between 18 and 59. Half of the participants will receive the vaccine over a six-month period, while the rest will receive a placebo, he said, noting 800 volunteers had been signed up so far.

Currently showing as Phase III on 3 trackers:

1. WHO Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines.

2. Vaccine Centre at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

3. Milken Institute

Not enough cross-confirmation; not yet recruiting, same here. No peer-reviewed publication on Ph I-II safety, doses, immune response. Zefr (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we using peer-review on Ph I-II as the definitive gating item?Albertaont (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Add Sinovac and Coronavac to Phase III, is Moderna even recruiting?

Can someone please update to show Phase III testing on both SinoVac and Coronavac in UAE and Brazil respectively? They are on multiple trackers and have been reported extensively since the last week. In fact half of the comments on this talk page now are about adding SinoVac/Coronavac.

Meanwhile, it looks like we literally waited for midnight on July 27th so we could add Moderna to Phase 3 testing. What are the exact criteria we used to include Moderna but not SinoVac and CoronaVac? I would like a proper explanation as I think the literature on both are far ahead of Moderna or at least comparable.

3 separate trackers on SinoVac and Coronavac in Phase III:

I. Milken Institute

II. WHO draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines.

III. Vaccine Centre at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

FYI - Moderna started "recruiting" today per NPR. But even in ClinicalTrials.gov they are not recruiting yet, yet we still include it?

I want to make sure we are updating these trackers objectively. NYT and CBC seem to have no problems including SinoVac/Coronavac/Cansino, why does Wikipedia? Albertaont (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Only CanSino, AZ-Oxford, and Moderna have published Ph I-II results in peer-reviewed journals, so that typical stage of vaccine development seems a good qualifier for whether a Ph III trial start is displayed in the table. Anyone can edit, so if you have a reliable source for Sinovac's published Ph II results and 2+ reputable sources showing recruitment has started for a Ph III trial, you can edit it yourself - you don't have to make requests for editing. We're all here as objective volunteers. Zefr (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone change from "extended confirmed protection" to "pending changes protection" so I may edit? We both agree on Cansino and AZ-Oxford being at their stage in the process, but I don't see Phase II results for Moderna which is why I see that as a red herring, even Moderna's Phase I results were underwhelming. Is this something we can discuss/debate? There is allegedly consensus on using multiple trackers before assigning a vaccine Phase III but even AZ-Oxford was put into Phase III before releasing Phase II results. Also, would like to see 2 reputable trackers which show Moderna in Ph III. If we have certain thresholds, then we should be objective and stick to them, Moderna doesn't pass the sniff test. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Use unified table cell templates

I think the colors for phases of trials on the trials table are difficult to read and maintain. I'd like to suggest replacing them with unified table cell templates. I created this, which probably requires some discussion and refining, but I've applied it to some articles and it looks good and readable to me, and I think it would probably do the same for this table. A sample:

COVID‑19: candidate vaccines in Phase I–III trials
Vaccine candidate (developer/sponsor)	Technology	Phase of trial (participants)	Adverse effects	Immune response	Location	Duration	References and notes
AZD1222 (University of Oxford, AstraZeneca)	adenovirus vector	Phase II–III interventional; randomized, placebo-controlled study for efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity (10,260)	^ pain at the injection site, headache, fever, chills, myalgia, malaise in more than 60% of participants; paracetamol needed to increase tolerability	^ spike-specific antibodies at day 28; neutralizing antibodies after a booster dose at day 56; report only 10 participants	United Kingdom	May 2020 to August 2021	Oxford name: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; ^ Phase I results, 543 people tested, but key results limited to small participant groups
Ad5-nCoV (CanSino Biologics, Institute of Biotechnology of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences)	recombinant adenovirus type 5 vector	Phase II interventional trial for dosing and side effects (382)	moderate over 7 days: 74% had fever, pain, fatigue	neutralizing antibody and T cell responses	China Canada	March 2020 to December 2020	Phase II trial details; manufacturing partnership with the National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Halifax, Nova Scotia
BNT162 (a1, b1, b2, c2) (BioNTech, Fosun Pharma, Pfizer)	RNA	Phase I–II of four vaccines, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, vaccine candidate-selection (7600)	pending Phase I report	pending Phase I report	Germany United States	April 2020 to May 2021

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ftrebien. That looks good! Zefr (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

All edit request in table about AZ-Ox vaccine under "Clinical trials started in 2020"

• Remove phrase "but key results limited to small participant groups" in "Phase I results, 543 people tested, but key results limited to small participant groups"
• Remove phrase "report only 10 participants"
• Change "paracetamol needed to increase tolerability" to "paracetamol used to alleviate symptoms"

Research paper does not say paracetamol is necessary. Saying only 10 people were given a booster, and this is a "limited" number, is WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as no source given that this wasn't a satisfactory number. 86.186.37.82 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This request concerns details and the source for the AZ-Oxford Ph I results in the main table. It wasn't a clear request. The request format says "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The large copied section you entered remains on the page but is hidden. Zefr (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Could an editor who didn't add these phrases to the table (see [1]) answer the request this time? 86.186.37.82 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The only 10 participants and limited to small groups phrases seem to be a misinterpretation of one additional protocol tested within the larger study and the "needed to increase tolerability" refers to a protocol amendment implemented at 2 out of 5 study sites. These are not clearly verified based on the reference given so I have implemented the edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating current phase in multiple simultaneous trials in different phases

I would like to continue checking and updating the clinical trials table, but I am not sure how the current phase should be set when there are multiple ongoing trials in different phases. Which definition do you think makes the most sense?

1. The lowest phase (or combination) that has started after any phase (or combination) with published results (if any): if so, mRNA-1273 would not yet be in phase III because there are no published results for phase II
2. The highest phase (or combination) that has started: if so, CoronaVac would already be in phase III, despite not having published results, and perhaps AZD1222 would also be in phase III (to name a few)

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your updating and editing, Ftrebien. There's no simple answer, imo. It's a juggling act to synthesize the progress from different sources, and try to be accurate and current for the article. A third choice is to monitor and cross-reference the reputable trackers, publications in premier journals, and at least two sources saying that a trial is "recruiting". Further, the vaccine companies seem to recognize that Lancet or NEJM are the journals of choice for reporting COVID-19 vaccine progress, and we can gauge from those rigorous editorial practices that the quality of results is deemed acceptable by experts. Lastly, we're a community of editors - with 141 editors monitoring the page, and 224,000 users/month visiting the article. That should be enough eyes checking content changes for accuracy. Zefr (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

A line should be added to the article’s introduction summarising the following article, or an equivalent, in which it is announced that Russia aims to start mass vaccination of its population in October 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/02/world/europe/russia-trials-vaccine-October.html StanTwoCents (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - that's just geopolitical news on a possible future event; WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL. There is no evidence they have a safe or effective vaccine, and haven't conducted a Phase III intervention trial to convince anyone of a proven vaccine that would be approvable for a multinational license. Zefr (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not news that they announce it? I would incorporate it and add a line that there is a healthy dose of scepticism, but that is just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanTwoCents (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Gam-COVID-Vac Lyo from Russia.

Gam-COVID-Vac Lyo from Russia has ended stage 2 trials. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russia-says-covid-19-vaccine-phase-2-trials-complete-claims-it-s-ready-for-use/story-aozmsj1Z5nxE20HQGEIFHI.html Can someone add this? F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We'll wait for publication in a peer-reviewed journal of Ph II results for adverse effects, dose-response, and immunogenicity, as for AZ-Oxford, CanSino, and Moderna, shown in the main table. Zefr (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

They promise to release their data in early August [2], but I would expect their data be based on a small test set, something closer to phase 1. But it does not matter because they will officially approve and use it anyway. This is a calculated gamble. The percentage of people with very serious complications from a poor quality vaccine would be very small. And even if the vaccine is not effective, it still will provide at least a temporary protection for some people until a better vaccine will be developed in other countries. This is logic behind making such decisions. Other countries would probably do the same already (i.e. use a poorly tested vaccine) if the percentage of deaths from the virus was significantly higher. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Russian vaccine announced today as "approved and registered" (only in Russia by political leaders) is unscientific propaganda, and should not be included in the article until there is international scientific acceptance of the evidence that it is safe and effective, upon which it would receive a multinational license. Zefr (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wealth of Data from WHO on vaccine candidates

The WHO has released a document with, among other things, links to all the vaccine registry entries for the candidates. Draft Landscape of Covid-19 candidate vaccines. Desertborn (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Putin

No word about this: https://www.rt.com/russia/497671-putin-covid-19-vaccine-first/? If you ask me, it should be mentioned in the article. --Koreanovsky (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The talk page for the Russian vaccine, "Gam-COVID-Vac", is here, addressing the pros and cons of discussing the Russian announcement and whether the sources are credible. While it is factual that the Russian vaccine was under study (we show it in the article main table as in a Phase I preliminary trial) and was approved (but only in Russia, nowhere else), there is generally universal protest and condemnation against the absence of scientific evidence that the Russian vaccine is scientifically proven to be safe and effective, and those candidate vaccine essentials can't be known because no Phase II-III trials have been conducted (so no data exist about its safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy for preventing COVID-19 infections).

As shown in Nature here: "This is a reckless and foolish decision. Mass vaccination with an improperly tested vaccine is unethical. Any problem with the Russian vaccination campaign would be disastrous both through its negative effects on health, but also because it would further set back the acceptance of vaccines in the population", and "It could be a major mistake. It could cause a lot of harm, Russia's move was a "political stunt", including a statement from the World Health Organization: "The vaccine also appears to face a tough hurdle winning approval from the WHO before the international health organization will buy or recommend it to other nations." You cannot use a vaccine or drugs or medicines without following through all of these stages, having complied with all of these stages." Russia has not followed the expected vaccine development process to assure safety and efficacy, but rather is playing a propaganda stunt (making the announcement not usable and non-compliant with WP:MEDRS), which the New York Times claims is a reckless and politically-motivated "manhood contest" between Putin and Trump. Zefr (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, they promised to openly release some testing data, but did not release anything. Yes, they probably completed only stage 1 (they claim to complete stage 2). Yes, the approval was widely criticized, and rightly so. But the fact remains: the vaccine, however bad it might be, has now been officially approved in at least two countries: Russia and China (for the military). That must be included to the page, and the sourced criticism of their vaccines should be included as well. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

But this should not be included in the lead like that. This should be only briefly mentioned as a controversial approval of a poorly tested vaccine in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As about the "October surprise" by D. Trump, that might be omitted as something summarily dismissed by experts. It was dismissed because there will be no final data from the phase III available in October, and approving without phase III is something that only Putin can do. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a ref for Chinese approval and military use of the Russian vaccine? The Chinese are giving soldiers of the PLA vaccinations with the CanSino vaccine (which is in an uncompleted Ph II trial). That seems to be the only other case of using a vaccine candidate before proof in Ph III trials of prevention efficacy and international licensing. There was no mention of Chinese government approval or the military using the Russian vaccine in the Nature article. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure about the actual usage. Reports only say about the official approvals like here. The Chinese government approved it only for military, Russian government just approved it. But the fact of approval was widely debated in multiple RS like the publications in "Nature". But of course in the countries like Russia, some people (like researchers in Vector) were vaccinated against Ebola and other pathogens long time ago even without any public approvals. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear: the Chinese government has approved military vaccinations only for the Chinese CanSino vaccine candidate (still in a Ph II trial), and not for the Russian vaccine candidate. Sources CNN, Financial Times, and others. Zefr (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure. This is only Putin who wants to sell his vaccine to the whole world. But can the World Health Organization and other counties use this vaccine, which did not pass the phase III? Probably not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Racism towards Russian Vaccine

Wikipedia authors are quick to type about unproven allegations put by US UK on Russia over hacking data for vaccine, which has sheer zero meaning to be written here. Whereas Vaccine developed by Russia is nowhere mentioned despite the country has officially registered it today.

FDA is an American procedure and it is not mandatory worldwide to produce vaccines with their observation. US no longer supports WHO because of their poor handling of coronavirus spread worldwide. Indigenous vaccines produced by Russia, India, Bangladesh etc deserve equal mentioning as much as UK US Chinese ones too.

Whether negative or positive, it should be written, boycotting to write Russian vaccine (despite being approved by their doctors government and public) is both negligence and racism. DarpSinghh (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is "boycotting" the vaccine, in fact you'll find an article on it here. What is happening is that people are waiting for actual reliable information to come out about the vaccine before adding it to this article, and the article is currently full protected to prevent people from putting propaganda and unreliable information in this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been systemic bias in this article against inclusion of any vaccines other than the US or UK, this has prevented people from understanding vaccine developments in China, Russia, and India which are genuinely useful. For reference, in July, the criteria for inclusion as Phase III trails were: 1) inclusion in several reputable trackers, 2) evidence of active recruitment, and 3) had peer reviewed publications of Ph1 or Ph2. Because condition 3 was not met, Sinopharm and Coronavac vaccines were not updated in this table. However, BNT162 was recently included as Phase III even though it did not have peer reviewed results, instead it had pre-print results. This gave the perception of an artificial moving of the goal post used to accomodate Phase III of BNT162.

Even if we were to accept the moving of the goalpost for the Phase III trials, under the same criteria for inclusion of BNT162 we should now also include Coronavac, for which a pre-print has also been published in the same medRxiv. The other issue is whether use of criteria 2 and 3 inclusion as indicators of Phase III trials "evidence of active recruitment" and "peer-reviewed publications of Ph1/Ph2" are consistent with the principles of Wikipedia, in that we should not be promoting original research. Wikipedia follows, does not lead. It is surprising that Wikipedia should consider itself a greater authority on what vaccines are in which phases of the clinical trial process over WHO, Vaccine Center at London School of Hygene & Tropic Medicine, Milken Institute, New York Times. We are not here in a position to vet on Wikipedia any of the reputable trackers, nor should we attempt to. I am also generally opposed to the idea that peer-reviewed publications are a pre-requisite gating item for inclusion in Phase III. It is apparent that many countries are proceeding with Phase III testing despite not having fully peer-reviewed results, including Brazil who started Phase III testing on both Oxford and Coronavac prior to actual publication of peer results from each. (Oxford results were published on the same day as Cansino).

Request 1: Move Coronavac to Phase III trials using current methodology in the inclusion of BNT162 (all data supporting this is already compiled above)

Request 2: Update consensus for inclusion in Phase I,II, and III s simply; inclusion in several reputable trackers. Under this condition Sinopharm trials in UAE, Brazil, and Bahrain will also be included in Phase III. I expect the Russian vaccine will be included shortly in Phase III as well once it starts being picked up in the trackers as well as Cansino, which recently announced trials in Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

I am flexible to other suggestions but right now is the time to have an open and candid discussion on this topic as we have have resorted to full protection on a topic of global importance with urgent new developments.

I now have access to article, please disregard. Albertaont (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Albertaont: To me, the OP's complaint isn't the fact that it isn't listed as a Phase III trial, but that the article doesn't mention it at all at the moment. That Russia has approved a COVID-19 vaccine is sufficiently notable to be reported in news sources [3] [4] [5]. I think I may have heard it on the radio the other day as well. As such, I am convinced there should be a mention of the Russian vaccine in this article in a suitable place and manner. — Smjg (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just realised it's listed in the 'Vaccine candidates' section as "Gam-COVID-Vac Lyo", such that it didn't show up when I tried searching for "Russia" or "Sputnik". So it's hard to spot. Still, we need at least something about Russia's approval of this vaccine and the international reaction thereto. Does anyone fancy a stab about it? — Smjg (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a good source we can use. It gives both the details about the vaccine and also the criticism about the way the Russians are going about with their plans. Count Iblis (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And include the the criticism. Phase II of the trails serves to establish the safety of the vaccine [6]. So, taking the vaccine after   the phase II might seem to be safe. However, there can be this problem, in addition to the vaccine be simply inefficient. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd quickly mention it, like "There is one vaccine that was approved by a government, Russian Gam-COVID-Vac, but it is not in Phase III yet and no reputable scientific report has been published on Phases I and II". It should be done not because this vaccine has any scientific value, but because many people will look at this article searching information about the place of Russian vaccine in the worldwide vaccine research, and now they would find nothing. Formally, I would say that such a short mention does not violate WP:UNDUE, as there is quite a lot of information about it, see Nature (above), Science and dozens of top news agencies around the world. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Now I am not so sure (see discussion below) but if there is a consensus to include, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Moderna shows promise in mouse studies

Do we want to add this? If so, where should it be added?

"SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness". Nature. 5 August 2020. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2622-0. ISSN 0028-0836.

"NIH-Moderna investigational COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse studies". National Institutes of Health (NIH). 5 August 2020. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

"NIH-Moderna Investigational COVID-19 Vaccine Shows Promise in Mouse Studies". NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 5 August 2020. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Animal studies are preclinical. As Moderna already has some results for phase I, this would not significantly change the clinical trials table. This could be a footnote in that table, but since this information is very specific, I think it may be more appropriate to create an article for their vaccine where this would be mentioned and referenced. Being a widely publicized subject with large advanced studies in progress, I think their vaccine already meets the notability guidelines. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. But I am reading they have a lot of trouble with enrollment of different ethnic groups in the US [7]. Why they do not do it in Brazil? My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

For the Equitable access section?

Would the following article be an appropriate reference for the Equitable access section of this page? https://nationalinterest.org/feature/are-you-candidate-donald-trumps-coronavirus-vaccine-166439 Communitarian703 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Communitarian703 - first, new talk page topics go to the bottom per WP:TALKNEW. Second, that magazine is a political pro-Trump forum, so is not WP:NPOV (comical that the article says it's "Donald Trump's Coronavirus Vaccine", as if a president has anything to do with developing a vaccine). Third, there are better sources about equitable access by US science groups, such as the National Academies, which is currently forming a national plan. Zefr (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Russia's Vector's coronavirus vaccine.

Article mentions Gamaleya vaccine from Russia, but not the Vector's vaccine. https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/69559/ It has recently started stage 2 trials. F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to know the difference. I know "Vектор" has vast experience on viruses. Uchyotka (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Gam-COVID-Vac

I added a citiation from the official scientific magazine of the German Medial accociation today.... but is was removed by a user completely, ... this user is contradiction his own requirment... and thus declares the German doctors as unscientific. What are thos users credentions that he think he is allowed to do so? Here is the text:

According to the official scientific magazine of the German Medical doctors association, Deutsches Ärzteblatt, on August 1st 2020 the Russian Minister of Health Mikhail Murashko had announced the conclusion of clinical tests, conducted by the state owned Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscau, for a vaccine developed by the institute. In reference to Sputnik, the first artificial earth satellite, ahead of the US, the vaccine was nicknamed in Russia „Sputnik V“.

Wladimir Putin announced lateron ( August 11th 2020) that the vaccine has been official registred for use and sale by the Russian health authorities, being the first in the world, to be soon available on the global market. However the move was critized by the German doctors as premature, due to lack of phase three trial data. Russian government officials stressed, that health professionals and teachers will be offered the vaccine first. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The Tagesspiegel article states the same critical content about the Russian vaccine candidate discussed in topic sections above this one ("Russian vaccine..." and "Putin"). There is plentiful consensus to not discuss the Russian vaccine news in the article because it is unverified (fails WP:V) and is probably propaganda, claiming to be "first". We do mention the Gamaleya candidate in the main table, and use its registration as a Phase I trial with ClinicalTrials.gov (and independent trackers in the article) as evidence that a human study is occurring. Further presentation is at the Russian vaccine candidate article, Gam-COVID-Vac, and its Talk page. When the Phase I-II results for Gam-COVID-Vac are published in a reputable journal, the project will have more credibility. Zefr (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Dear user Zefr, .. however to dismiss the German medical association paper, but happily quote Bloomberg when talking on the US devlopments (final sentences of the national governments section), shows in my eyes, some lack of a balanced view of the world. To put a merchants outlet over a doctors one in the Covid-19 case, is courageous in my eyes.

It was agreed that some scientific journal should report on the Russian vaccine, and then the news should be added to Wiki. Thus I followed the a priori established rule. The Deutsches Ärzteblatt is the German equivalent to JAMA. I guess if JAMA reports it, you would not dismiss it.

With the same right, I could remove the final sentence on the US developments, based on Bloomberg. I think we should keep restrain and should discuss "removals" first.

I urge you to improve my text, but not completley remove the statement stemming from the official association of German doctors. So please, undo your removal and improve the text please, jusst adding more of your sceptical in view ... It seems you do not need translational help, when reading the Deutsches Ärzteblatt. I would be happy to clarify additionally, if you want so ( German is my mother language).

KR

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that it is included already to the table, including more is indeed debatable, given that in reality this is just one of many vaccines on the stage I-II. My personal inclination would be to wait until it actually will be used on a large scale, and then indeed the description of the actual usage of this "vaccine" (with all consequences) would be certainly "due", assuming the results of the usage are described in strong RS. Right now I am not sure. This is the case when I would stick to MEDRS. We need: (a) a peer-reviewed publication with resaults of the actual trials, and (b) and independent secondary RS of scientific nature where the results of the trials are critically evaluated. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:My very best wishes.

I agree and as Zefr has now turned also to my personal user page, the discussion on the equality of resources, especially - is Bloomberg a peer-reviewed outlet and thus worth to be used as resource - I will keep the discussion public. So see my answer below to user:Zefr, and also to you statement above. You find this also on my user: talk page.

Dear Zefr what I want here, is the same as you, and the consensus of editors it seems, for this Vaccine page.

It is a balanced reporting based on "peer reviewed journals" . Note however the Deutsche Ärzteblatt is peer reviewed, and as I argue a much more "peer reviews scientific journal" as Bloomberg is. Or do you disagree on that?

So does Bloobmerg fullfill your/our criteria above? Is it peer reviewed? Obviously No. 1) Please answer specifically, what you think here.

And thank you for your trial of kind wishes for me, however "Best Wunschen!" does not make any sense in German, but it sound somehow kind. My humble wish = Wunsch, not even my best wish, is, to treat sources the same. Be it American ones, or German ...

So to see as you, "Bloomberg" as sacrosanct to be used as source here, and "Deutsches Ärzteblatt" not ... what shall I say .. that is my least wish. That is not the information world I want the English Wikipedia to be a reflection of ... Or do you? Please be aware what bias your are introducing here. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To summ this discussion up here (as Zefr has also agreed not to continue to place his arguments on my user page; thank you for that), it looks as if it is consensus here not to inform the English speaking Wiki readers of the developments on the risky but interesting Public Health experiment going on in Russia this year, regarding the testing of the vaccine. I am happy that the German Wiki does report it, and updates on the development. So at least some hundred+ million German speakers are considered to be mature enough to deal with this "truth". And for the Anglo-American-sphere the consensus among the editors here for their audience seems to be: Ignorance is Bliss. I will stop to fight for a balanced reporting here, feel cosy in your simple, business driven, news heaven. KR from happy, and more balanced Central-Europe, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot twist: anything in Slavic language is often labelled as "fails at WP:V" because its hard to translate.

Regards, borzh eater who is still confused non-Slavic "borscht" word is considered the norm in English. Uchyotka (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of Russian espionage

This paragraph shall be removed.

A statement by spying agencies, that their contrahents are spying, and they themselves of course not, looks very misplaced here.

All spying agencies spy on other countries important activities. Just to mention only the Russian ones as culprits looks very unbalanced, and to more impartial eyes even naive in the Wiki context of this article on the vaccine development.

Of course BBC reports on such a news, as BBC is quite UK government affiliated as the mentioned spying agency is also. 

So no scientific or other independent sources on such "usual" business claims for such agencies, thus I opt for removal

If removal does not find supporters, I argue for a more balanced writing, which I prepared already. If some co-editors are interested in this 2-3 sentences addition, please indicate here.

KR from a Central-European beautiful summer day, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Spasibo. Uchyotka (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the change F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GeneOne trial announcement

This edit revert was justified as a promotional announcement not verified by any tracker, but rather is a press release (the "PR") by the company itself. It is not evidence of an actual trial underway. It is listed as still "preclinical" or not at all on the WHO and London School trackers. We don't need to be in a hurry to list every news bite about clinical trial plans. Zefr (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Janssen Pharmaceutica upcoming to add to Phase III trials

A good faith edit to include the J&J vaccine in the vaccine candidates table was prepared by @SCIdude:. While I don't necessarily agree with the current inclusion criteria, we have established that for inclusion in Phase III, a vaccine candidate needs to: 1) publish phase II peer-reviewed results, 2) show as "recruiting" in a clinical trials register, 3) be tracked as Phase III by 2-3 reputable trackers (i.e. Milken, WHO, London School).

I see no issues with J&J vaccine meeting 2) and 3) in the next few weeks, but I have yet to see peer-reviewed results. Can someone get us a link for Phase II results (or even pre-print), let us know, and at least we can add that in. Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian Sputnik V and Italian GRAd-COV2

I don't have the technical information to write about the Russian Sputnik V and Italian GRAd-COV2 vaccines, but it seems to me they should be included.Calmecac5 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the lastest developments allow for a mentioning here. Russia starts to immunize his population with it´s onw vaccine, trade name Sputnik V. However I am bldkked from publishing it, today again. Within seconds my text proposal is removed. What is going on here. Ignorance of the people is bliss... the secret motto of the old DDR (GDR).

here is the text I placed, but was obviosly removed immedately (I hope it was only a technical glitch on my side)..

---

According to the conservative, traditional NATO friendly Austrian newspaper Die Presse,

reporting on August 31, Russia will start to deliver the first patches of the registred vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac, mentioned in the table below, to the Russian population in September 2020 already.

---

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Important information: NYT opinion by 2 vaccine experts

There is an important piece about the roles played by a successful vaccine in the Times today: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/24/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-prevention.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage Unfortunately, the piece has both technical terminology and is a bit rambling and disorganized. I would encourage you, the esteemed editors of this WP article, to digest the critical points in the piece and add them to WP's information on COVID vaccines. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an opinion letter to NYT; not reporting of medical literature. If that topic was reported in medical literature, and peer reviewed, then that could be significant. peterl (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The other vaccines that are mentioned that stop virus shedding are not so by design. It is an accidental benefit. No one can design for that. Demanding it is wishful thinking, my opinion. --SCIdude (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cansino Phase III trials in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia, and Pakistan

Saudi Arabia confirmed it would soon begin Phase III trials on 5,000 people for the vaccine developed by CanSino Biologics. Saudi Arabia plans to test the vaccine alongside a placebo on 5,000 volunteers and is currently preparing trials in the cities of Riyadh, Dammam, and Mecca. Reuters

Mexico aims to conduct late-stage clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines in development by U.S. company Johnson & Johnson and Chinese companies CanSino Biologics and Walvax Biotechnology, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said. Ebrard said the trials would start between September and January, depending on approval from Mexico's food and drug agency. Reuters

Russia's state register for clinical trials revealed Petrovax was starting a phase III trial of CanSino's vaccine, which was expected to recruit 625 participants across eight medical institutes to test safety and effectiveness.Reuters

Pakistan’s Drug Regulatory Authority has approved a Phase III trial of CanSino's vaccine with 10,000 volunteers to be conducted across major medical research centres located in Karachi, Islamabad, and Lahore. Reuters

Currently showing as Phase III in following trackers:

• WHO draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines
• London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Albertaont (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No reporting of future developments, user Zefr removes my sentence based on that argument

A moment ago, and indeed seconds after I placed it, user:Zefr removed my text on new developments as of today. It was indicated in an independant, traditional, consvervative newspaper of neutral Austria, that Russia will start with the month beginning tomorrow to deliver a vaccine to it´s population. User:Zefr removed this text without discussion and just with this short comment in the history line: "WP:NOTNEWS for a future event that cannot be independently confirmed; WP:CRYSTAL (TW)."

However, it is idependently confirmed, because it is reported in a trusted source: Die Presse and the official news channel of the Austrian Republic - ORF.

And following his arguments, all reports on future developments on this page shall be removed. I agree, and will start to remove a lot of sections, just the same way user:Zefr does. Why should I do not, when Zefr is allowed to do that? A lot of the business stuff, provied by Bloomberg is up for removal then.

Do we like that? . This is clear editor warring. We should refrain from that, please. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As some minutes have passed now, and new sources on my text are available, it became clear that the arguments of user:Zefr became obsolete. Neither is it a crystal ball, nor a lack of indpedendant sources reporting on the future event stating tomorrow.

So within minutes I will improve my text and thus revert and improve the text, following Wiki policiy WP:REV, where there are not several voices of othe editors in the same timeframe as user:Zefr has erased my text without disucssion ... (2 minutes, to note, please). This is the upcomming text I will place:

---

According to the conservative, traditional NATO friendly Austrian newspaper Die Presse,

and the official, but independent like BBC, news channel of Austria, ORF reporting on August 31, Russia will start to deliver the first patches of the vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac, mentioned already below in the table, to the

Russian population in September already. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I hope User:Zefr will come up with explanations, otherwise the new developments are no crystal ball gazing, but reports from several indepdentant, not Russian and non US sources on events taking place beginning of September in Russia..

It shall be reported here, it is no hoax... or do you, dear User:Zefr, still believe so?

Dear User:Zefr: as you do not raise any more defence for your fast - and now unfounded - acitivty, I will soon place the information on the same developments in Russia in the article´s text. Before erasing it again please discuss it on the talk page, best herunder. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC) User:Zefr has not defended his unjustified erasure of my text, which was done within 2 minutes, for nearly 2 days now (48 hours, xxx minutes). No other editor has objected. So I will add the improved text - with a second independent source - . And it is not Crystall:Balling, a completely unjustified accusation by user:Zefr. As my information about an important development, from a real independent media sources, not involved in any kinde of information or cold war against Russia, I rely on. So I will revert and improve the text/sentence according to WP:Rev, now. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverted for absence of verification by an independent source, WP:V, and for you having no consensus from other editors here on the talk page to add it, WP:CON. 1) the Die Presse article is about a future event (WP:CRYSTAL), picked up on public news issued from Russia. No evidence of independent observations. 2) the Orf.at source is a copy of Die Presse. These are not different sources, and there is no evidence of independent observations of recruiting or trial design within Russia. There is still no publication from Phase I or II results, even though Russian announcements were made in mid-August they would be published in a reputable non-Russian journal by last week. There is no justification to give credibility to this vaccine candidate making progress through science-based steps of clinical research. Zefr (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Zefr used my user talk page again, I will bring the succus of our discussion to the public here: User:Zefr did write ... Meanwhile, the burden is on you to 1) verify the Die Presse source with more extensive, independent references - see WP:BURDEN, and 2) build consensus among other editors to include this content in the article, WP:CON. You had no other editors supporting your desire to include this content from the talk page - this should reveal to you that other editors don't feel your edit is worthwhile to include. You are being disruptive by insisting to include content without adequate verification. The warning about disruptive editing is justified. Zefr (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

I agree, in one point.

I will slow down. My writing will get better then. However the net result will be: English Wiki readers will just be kept ignorant on important developments, wich is substatially not my problem, as happily living in Europe, we have other reliable sources also. On the other hand: Your discussion dear user:Zefr style is questionable. You do not reply to my questions on the subject talk page, systematically. I gave you 48 hours time to defend your statement. You did not answer. Therefore I reverted and improved. You did not notice the change, you just made unjustified statements about copying. When it comes for deleting anew a text I placed, you reacted within 30 miuntes. And your request on the sources of the news from Austria: it´s Reuters ... seems to be some Russian spy agency in your eyes, following your line of arguments. KR from central Europe FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Stating succinctly for the last time on this topic: 1) a talk page is not a place for conversation between two editors - that's what your talk page is for - I have cleaned up the broken page formatting from this discussion above, and removed further forum complaining. Note to FrankBierFarmer from WP:NOTFORUM: read part 4- "Discussion forums"; 2) your talk page discussions should not be brought to an article talk page unless they apply specifically to improving the article (that is, no complaining about another editor, WP:NPA); 3) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS, so unconfirmed developments are not intended for the encyclopedia - the content and sources you want to add are identical content as news sources that appear to be reporting more Russian propaganda on an unconfirmed event - this is unencyclopedic; 4) the news reports discuss a supposed future plan for the Russian vaccine - this is WP:CRYSTAL, and is not worth mentioning until there is verified history for the event; 5) if you can get consensus among other editors to include your content and sources, then that is fine - WP:CON will have succeeded. Zefr (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

isrctn might be a clickbait website

There is a thing going about with clickbait websites giving positive news reports regarding the coronavirus pandemic and the source for it saying the Astra Zeneca vaccine is in phase III is a website called isrctn which might be a clickbait website so I think that needs reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.117.59 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify your question? The University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is currently in a phase 2 / phase 3 combined stage. This is reported on numerous website that are not clickbait (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/aug/27/covid-vaccine-tracker-when-will-coronavirus-vaccine-be-ready & https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html). This fact is reflected in the wikipedia article already (see COVID-19 vaccine#Vaccine candidates) I am unsure why you believe that we would need to examine a website which you already believe to be clickbait in order to verify an already widely disseminated fact. --Ian E. (External Link Specialist) 19:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Clickbait from Springer (and others) is not new. You can still rely on the information if there is any contained. --SCIdude (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, the news has since proven it's true so case closed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.117.59 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: additional trial countries for vaccines already in Phase III

We all know that for a vaccine to be listed as Phase III is a high bar to meet on wiki, namely:

1) requires peer-reviewed results of previous Phases

2) show as recruiting in multiple trackers

3) be registered in a formal clinical trial register

For vaccine candidates that have already met those conditions, and are ALREADY listed as phase III; to add additional countries as trial locations for the same vaccine should be satisfied by a RS of that country. Practically, that would mean subsequent trials don't need to be registered inside the original clinical tracker. Thoughts? Albertaont (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why we use secondary trackers for what to me is a "factual information" which can be easily supported by a primary claim from a company. Regardless, that seems to be the consensus here, so I haven't challenged it. IMO it's one or the other - either we require a secondary MEDRS source such as a tracker for everything (including new countries being added), or we allow the original trial itself to be reported based on a non MEDRS such as a news article and/or a press release from the company. I do not believe having a "lower standard" for adding to an existing study, versus adding a new study altogether, is useful in any way. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I would rather just keep the consensus at this point, than re-litigate it. Zefr do you have a view on this as well on additional trial countries for vaccines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertaont (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we will not have a lower standard. Easiest path forward as nothing changes then!Albertaont (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CanSino, Italian and Cuban vaccine

What about them? According to what we can find, CanSino started Phase III some weeks ago; they started sperimentation of Italian vaccine on the 24th August, and the Cuban one, too. But on the Wikipedia site there isn't anything about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyLifeIsDragonBall (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Covishield vaccine trials in India

Pune-based Serum Institute of India (SII) has said it is halting Covid-19 vaccine trials, a day after it was served a show-cause notice by the country's drugs regulator.

The Indian vaccine manufacturer has inked a deal with Britain's AstraZeneca to produce and supply 1 billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) had earlier allowed it to conduct the Phase II and Phase III trials of the vaccine in the country to determine its safety and immunogenicity.

On Thursday, SII said: "We are reviewing the situation and pausing India trials till AstraZeneca restarts the trials. We are following Drugs Controller General of India’s (DCGI) instructions and will not be able to comment further on trials." Voice India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasenjitsh (talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Serum Institute pauses vaccine trials in India a day after notice from drugs controller

Pune-based Serum Institute of India (SII) has said it is halting Covid-19 vaccine trials, a day after it was served a show-cause notice by the country's drugs regulator.

The Indian vaccine manufacturer has inked a deal with Britain's AstraZeneca to produce and supply 1 billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) had earlier allowed it to conduct the Phase II and Phase III trials of the vaccine in the country to determine its safety and immunogenicity.

On Thursday, SII said: "We are reviewing the situation and pausing India trials till AstraZeneca restarts the trials. We are following Drugs Controller General of India’s (DCGI) instructions and will not be able to comment further on trials." Voice India Prasenjitsh (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Prasenjitsh: This information is already in the article - under the table. I see no reason to add further information - pauses are a normal and expected part of clinical trials and there is no need to include more information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine trial paused

For consideration to be added.

AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine study put on hold due to suspected adverse reaction in participant in the U.K.

AstraZeneca Pauses Vaccine Trial for Safety Review

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Support to be added. Aditional source: AstraZeneca shares drop after company announces 'routine' safety pause in coronavirus vaccine trial - Rupert Loup (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Support should we just include it in the vaccine table, I dont think this requires a blurb the way we have the article set up right now Albertaont (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as trial as resumed again. Pauses like these appear routine in trials. Desertborn (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit-Request: Very wrong dates of Russian phase III

Hi :-)
in the table of clinical trials both start and end date of phase III of Gam-COVID-Vac are very wrong. Correct dates can be found here. Please correct the dates, such that they reflect that "Russian President Vladimir Putin announced regulatory approval of the vaccine, even before the vaccine candidate had been entered into Phase III trials"l (Quote source: Gam-COVID-Vac).
Thank you --92.195.250.130 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done - The CT.gov source says enough about dates. Zefr (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: emergency approval authorization

The UAE has approved Sinopharm's Covid-19 vaccine for frontline workers following successful Phase III clinical trials in Abu Dhabi. "The results of studies during the final stages of the Phase III trial showed that the vaccine is effective and resulted in a strong response, and the generation of antibodies to the virus. Studies on the safety of the vaccination have been reviewed and showed that it is safe and safe for use." said Minister of Health Abdulrahman Al Owais. The WHO-recognized trial began on July 16 and involved 31,000 volunteers. (The National).

This is significant in that a 3rd party government has approved of emergency use of COVID-19 vaccine following two months of Phase III trials. Its quite different from China and Russia's earlier approval of vaccine use which generated some skepticism since emergency approval was prior to Phase III testing and also the vaccine was developed by the respective countries, hence fears of "vaccine nationalism." I have included a small blurb in the vaccine table showing emergency approval in the UAE for healthcare workers. Am interested in hearing other proposals, as emergency approvals from other countries will also start coming hard and fast. Albertaont (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is news and, imo, transient, unencyclopedic information - WP:NOTNEWS. There's no possibility of a "successful" Phase III trial result obtained in 2 months (months-years for a typical vaccine). "Interim" results are not final, but rather a glimpse of a trend in data, and the safety conclusion by the UAE minister is premature. In this case, the only safety data published are from the Phase I-II trials on less than 100 people per group - PMID 32789505. Governments are free to declare EUA for their own situation - which will generate news - but an encyclopedia should rely on evidence from published results to justify a decision to approve EUA or not. Zefr (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

New review

Should be useful:

• Tregoning JS, Brown ES, Cheeseman HM, Flight KE, Higham SL, Lemm NM, Pierce BF, Stirling DC, Wang Z, Pollock KM (2020). "Vaccines for COVID‐19". Clinical & Experimental Immunology (Review). doi:10.1111/cei.13517. ISSN 0009-9104.

Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Janssen phase III

The Janssen candidate (Ad26.COV2.S) has begun its 60,000-strong phase III trial. Should this be updated in the table?

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-initiates-pivotal-global-phase-3-clinical-trial-of-janssens-covid-19-vaccine-candidate

I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Estimated Release Date

I think the single most important question any reader has when seeking articles of the sort is "WHEN"!

- The table under COVID-19 vaccine#Vaccine candidates cannot be sorted accordingly. The last column of 'Duration' should split in two so that one can sort using end-dates for the phases, and dates should be written in the format yyyy-mm(-dd) so that this is feasible.

- Also certain vaccines have been approved for "Early or Limited Use" in certain countries (e.g. to medical staff, soldiers etc). This link by the New York Times has a great graphic with the number of vaccines in every phase right at the top and a whole section with details on this. There should be a greener color for those vaccines in the table and these details should be included (if the informed editors here think this or other sources of the sort are reliable).

- And finally there are some other early releases due to political (not necessarily 100% scientific) decisions which should be mentioned. A large number of politicians obviously think the economic consequences and/or the disease itself can lead to graver health problems than the possible side effects.

All of the above can help the reader understand better the possible answer to the "WHEN" question at a glance. NikoSilver 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not care when, I care about how dangerous the vaccine is. There is also no way to say when in many cases. So far only russian vaccine is used not just for Phase III, but on people. 2A00:1370:812D:2909:C073:B976:E44A:2023 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed attempt

A vaccine based on SARS-CoV-2 with the main focus on totally replacing the spike protein with a different unharmful one which doesn't mimic it.

It is the totally opposite of what most vaccines have in focus.

Still the other remaining proteins need a mild change in order to make them safe.

The theory behind it is that the body can react to other proteins.

Why it failed?

1. people focus on the spike protein that causes the entrance
2. some claim that the other protein will differentiate faster (but still according to the data, they do not differentiate enough)

Why to make the opposite thinking vaccine.

The spike protein has been proven harmful and able to cause the disease, even when it was the sole virion component of the SARS-CoV-2.

(Probably it won't work, but it's not well tested.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:99BE:3115:2076:E565:ADA1 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Risks. Get sick from the corona vaccination?

Possible risks must be named in the article: a) as a warning about the vaccine and b) who denied or rejected the warning(s). Points are: vaccination damage, sick from vaccination, dead from vaccination. Is there a risk of cancer after m-RNA vaccinations? Genetic risk: can m-RNA vaccinations cause people to mutate? Could mRNA vaccinations unintentionally trigger an autoimmune disease? The allegations and the debilitations belong - especially in view of the telescoping - m. E. necessarily in this article. Any objections? 84.160.35.199 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Except for side effects which resemble coronavirus infection, and adverse effects revealed in Phase I-III research, none of this is likely or scientifically established. Provide a WP:MEDRS source for such claims. Also, see adverse effects under "completed phase" in the main table, here. There are numerous resources about vaccine safety on the web; here's one for children. Zefr (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zefr. But what about the discussion itself? It is the discussion (printmedia, TV, etc.) about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, that should be part of the WP-article. Talking about the talking, let's discuss the public discussion. 84.160.35.199 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a source being proposed here? Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Shionogi's vaccine

I think need add one 120.29.113.207 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

University of Melbourne/Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Vaccine

According to this source there is a vaccine developed by the university of Melbourne and MCRI in phase 3 clinical trial. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/oct/29/covid-vaccine-tracker-when-will-a-coronavirus-vaccine-be-ready Lmagoutas (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I first thought that they messed up the colours. I went to WHO to confirm. The vaccine does not seem to be listed anywhere in the most recent WHO list of vaccine candidates but MCRI states they are developing a vaccine. Can someone look into this and see if there is anything we should add to the page or maybe tell me if there is something I am not seeing? e.g. Maybe it has a different name in this page and/or in the WHO document and I missed it etc.

You can find the most recent WHO document here: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines Lmagoutas (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Too preliminary in development to mention. There are about 250 similar early-stage candidates in preclinical or Phase I-II research when risk of failure is high. The WHO landscape tracker and other major trackers shown in the lede will mention it when/if it is registered and advancing through human studies. Zefr (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That explains it! Thank you for the answer! Lmagoutas (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

novavax in phase 3 in UK

see press release here: https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-initiates-phase-3-efficacy-trial-covid-19-vaccine-united

(i had my day 21 last week. it's sore.) Morwen (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Novavax entered Phase III trials -

Hi, Novavax entered Phase III trials of their vaccine, at least as per the following document from the Australian government, that have an agreement with them for purchase of their vaccines:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/vaccines-and-treatments/australias-vaccine-agreements

Also, the following search shows that they are recruiting for Phase III trials in UK and South Africa and are planning to start in US too.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=Novavax&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

It looks to me that Section 7.1 - Clinical trials started in 2020 needs updating as it shows Novavax vaccine as being only in Phase II.

I realise that the situation is fluid and the precise criteria when a Phase III trial has actually started are not clear to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1J (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS - Poorly referenced vaccine trials

Looking at the COVID-19_vaccine#Clinical_trials_started_in_2020 list;

There seems to be an editor promoting obscure, Chinese vaccine trials. Can we simply delete any vaccine trial that hasn't received significant coverage in secondary sources? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Which ones would you like deleted? The only vaccine sources allowed for this table per consensus are either the 1) formal clinical trial registry, 2) peer-reviewed (or pre-print) results, 3) reference to reputable tracker like WHO/Milken/LSHTM. If there are any references to BBC/CNN/ABC... they are not permitted and need to be removed. Albertaont (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier you pointed to a conversation you'd called a "RfC" between yourself and one other editor as an example of "consensus". That is not consensus. Nor was it really an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for details on how to apply the appropriate tags to RfCs.

Your statement seems to infer that there is consensus to use primary sources for this medical topic. Even if there were consensus for that, it would be a pretty clear example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A decision you make here on this page doesn't override WP:MEDRS. The central tenant of MEDRS is simply that we don't use primary sources.

The main problem with the vaccine studies you're promoting is that listing them the way you do seems to provide them WP:UNDUE weight. There's very limited coverage of that work in sources and I don't think they're generally considered "serious" efforts.

Unless we can figure out a way to somehow remove the false equivalency in the current list, I'll probably just delete the problematic lines. NickCT (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be obfuscating the point. Which specific vaccines in your opinion are "obscure" not "serious"?Albertaont (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

For further avoidance of doubt, for inclusion in the vaccine table, the vaccine needs to be included in a reputable 3rd party tracker, which is a requirement which must be also met for the chinese vaccines in Phase III. All these sources are already cited within the COVID-19 article.

1) World Health Organization: [8]

2) Milken Institute: [9]

3) London School of Hygene and Topical Medicine: [10]

Also an existing source in the page (albeit non-medical) is the 4) New York Times Vaccine Tracker [11]] Albertaont (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So, no answer to the MEDRS issue?

I'd just delete any vaccine that isn't being conducted by a notable institution. For instance, the "unnamed" vaccine is sponsored by

Laboratorio Elea Phoenix S.A? Who the heck is that? NickCT (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify what is your definition of "notable institution". But since you asked for coverage in non-medical secondary sources, this is what it looks like for Sinopharm. There is no need to put endless ref spam for all vaccines on this page, but you can find this on the sinopharm vaccine page which is linked in the table. If you read the articles, the trials are done under the supervision of the respective governments. (I added indents on your comments)

UAE (Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-emirates-vaccine-int-idUSKBN26T1N5

Jordan (Jordan Times) https://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-starts-phase-3-trial-chinas-covid-19-vaccine

Bahrain (Tribune of Bahrain) https://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/66696.html

Argentina (Reuters) https://ca.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25I0CZ

Albertaont (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. I asked about the sponsor, Laboratorio Elea Phoenix S.A, and you pointed to a different company, Sinopharm. Unintentional mistake? Or intentional one? NickCT (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read my response? You will know what Laboratorio Elea is if you clicked the link on Argentina (Reuters) [12]. Albertaont (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And a single mention in a single article establishes notability in your mind? NickCT (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking for an Argentina source? [13]? What makes you say Sinopharm trials are not notable? There are trials in multiple countries referenced within the page. Albertaont (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the complications around writing about experimental medical products is that they are potential commercial products as well as medical drugs/devices/biologics/etc. Efficacy isn't generally proven for experimental vaccines, and efficacy is what MEDRS really wants the secondary sources for.

However, "Big Pharma bet $10B on this product" isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information at all, and is therefore not subject to MEDRS at all. "Big Pharma bet $10B on this product" requires exactly the same type of sources that you would use to support a statement that says "Microsoft bet $10B on this computer product".

To do this, the article needs to focus on the business end, and avoid all direct statements about medicine. You can use primary sources to say what type of vaccine it is, what it's name is, which company is working on it, what stage trials it's in, how much the company is spending on it, etc. Names, dates, and places are all fair game. You can use secondary non-academic/non-scientific sources to say things like whether the company's likely to survive if their experimental product is a flop. Just don't use primary sources to say that anything cures, prevents, or treats any disease, or even to give any assessment of prospects (e.g., "hopeful" or "promising"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is becoming stale, what is exactly the ask right now? Albertaont (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We should just delete any line for vaccines who's notability can't be supported by a single secondary source (i.e. have a secondary source that talks exclusively about that vaccine). Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous, non-notable information. NickCT (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Every major tracker, including the WHO and clinicaltrials.gov, records the CanSino Phase III trial. There is no other editor support for the objections of NickCT and therefore no WP:CON. Stop the disruptive deletion and edit warring. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: - As a second warning; don't post vandalism templates over content disputes.

Thank you for a least bringing your concerns to the talk page this time.

I'm not sure saying "something is on trackers" is enough to warrant inclusion. If we were to do that, someone could flood this list with a plethora of trivial studies (in addition to the ones already here). I think we should really rely on secondary sources to establish some kind of notability here. Are there any secondary sources that provide direct coverage (rather than just as a list) to the vaccine effort in question? NickCT (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Since March, we've been using trackers - beginning with the WHO landscape tracker mentioned in the lede - to record trial progress which is now the subject of the main table for trials started in 2020. All the trials listed in the table are registered by the WHO or government publications in Europe, China or the US. Each major tracker is a secondary or tertiary source based on the trial registration and reputable journal reports or news. If a trial is registered and reputably reported, it meets the criteria for notability. The history of table edits will show that each trial listed is supportable by a registration number, journal and/or news publication, and reputable tracker listing. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

re "trial is registered and reputably reported, it meets the criteria for notability" - Citation needed. Reputable journals are primary sources. It's not clear to me that "trackers" are secondary sources. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Re. "Reputable journals are primary sources" - surely they are secondary, reporting on the subject created by a primary source (e.g. the lab and/or its marketing dept). Or am I missing something? 51.9.50.140 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmmm..... Well, this subject may be more appropriate on another talkpage, but; I think if a journal article is authored by a researcher reporting on his/her own work, then it would be considered primary. Journal articles that reporting on other peoples' research (sometimes called "reviews") would be secondary. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just took out the silly mockup of hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine vials added by User:Mrbartgry

That picture was a major violation of WP core policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT, especially the part about how Wikipedia is not a textbook.

It's analogous to, say, placing crude amateurish fan art in the Frozen Fever article as representative of the film. Instead we have my photos of the people who actually made the movie.

At some point, one of the vaccine candidates is probably going to be approved. Hopefully, some government agency will allow photos to be taken of vials when they make the big announcement. So that would be the appropriate time to add photos to this article. Not fake photos of something which doesn't even exist. Also, the hypothetical labeling is all wrong--it's clear whomever created that fake photo has no understanding of drug labeling.

The correct approach to contributing photos to Wikipedia is to carry a camera (a real camera, not a cell phone) at all times. As Louis Pasteur said, chance favors the prepared mind. That's how I recently got the photo for the PlayStation 5 article, because I carry a Canon Rebel SLR at all times in my car and I pay attention to my environment when I'm driving around. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

11 vaccines in phase III

According to WHO, 11 vaccins are currently in phase III. Compared to the table, there are two different vaccines from Sinopharm (two lines will be more clear), and the Novavax. Source: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines Fleet ch (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Moderna start date

The Clinical Trails table lists an unreferenced start date for the Moderna vaccine as "July 2020" (under the heading "Duration", described as "The range from the actual start date of Phase I to the estimated primary completion date of Phase III, when available"). However the NEJM reference for the "Completed phase" column states, "The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020". July appears to be a reference to the start of phase 3 trials, not the start of clinical trials (i.e. phase 1). Could someone scrub these dates and their references? 50.53.55.187 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified Exclusion of Vaccine Candidates

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

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

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

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

Request for Addition of Citations

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

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

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

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

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

Updates Re: Lunar-COV19/ARCT-021

• https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/arcturus-therapeutics-announces-positive-interim-arct-021-lunar-cov19-phase-1-2-study-results-for-both-single-shot-and-prime-boost-regimens-and-up-to-220-million-in-additional-financial-commitments-from-singapore/

• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/final-phase-of-spore-vaccine-trial-starting-soon

• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/singapore-could-have-a-covid-19-vaccine-by-early-2021-close-to-300m-commitment-from

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

I removed claim that adjuvants enable evolution of viral escape

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

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

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

Vaccine candidates table > BNT162b2 interim analysis results?

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

It should definitely be there. I tried to do it but it broke formatting badly... not sure why. I tried in several different ways but it may be a bug in the visual editor. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont think it should be there, but for the sake of consistency with Moderna and Astra-Zeneca and to avoid bias, I can put it in this weekend if there are no objections. Albertaont (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Its done, although I am not against someone removing it again so long as it is removed from the other vaccines as well. Albertaont (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December 1: status of Pfizer-BioNTech Phase III trials

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

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

Initial trial completed

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

"94 cases of COVID-19 among 43,538 trial participants." "The trial will continue until a total of 164 COVID-19 cases are detected, so initial estimates of the vaccine’s effectiveness could change." The official upcoming event will be whether the European Medicines Agency and FDA grant EUA, but those decisions are based on interim results, not the conclusion of the Phase III trials in Europe and the US. Zefr (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, initial trial completion, does not mean final trial completion and the text already states that testing is continuing. Please stop your disruptive editing and reverting to text without a reference. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "initial trial completion", but rather an "interim analysis" has been reported. The content and source you added are misleading, resulting from your (and IndustryWeek's - not an authoritative source for clinical trials) misunderstanding of what is a press release on interim results, and what is a concluded Phase III trial (producing complete results on several vaccine outcomes), which will eventually be peer-reviewed and published in a medical journal. See here for various expert interpretations based on the Pfizer 9 Nov announcement of interim results. It is an error to state that the Pfizer trial is "completed". You should admit your mistake, revise the content in the article, and delete the IndustryWeek source which is a non-expert interpretation - there are better sources. Zefr (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agree this seems odd wording outside of accepted usage. Whatever, would need agreement to include something odd like this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Alexbrn and Zefr. The press releases are merely interim readouts in the middle of ongoing Phase III clinical trials. It looks like User:Daniel.Cardenas has stumbled into an unknown unknown situation -- that is, you don't know what you don't know. This is a situation which college-level critical thinking courses specifically teach students to be alert for and to guard against (yes, I took one). The principled approach is to recognize when one has strayed outside of one's area of expertise and back down. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Won't EUA invalidate the remainder of phase III?

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

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

UK approval

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

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

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

ZyCoV-D vaccine candidate

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

• "Zydus' vaccine for COVID-19 (ZyCoV-D) successfully completes preclinical development and receives permission to initiate human clinical trials" (PDF). Cadila Healthcare.
• Thacker, Teena. "Zydus Cadila to test ZyCoV-D on 30,000 patients in Phase-3 trials". The Economic Times.
• Sachdeva, Sonali; Gupta, Udita; Prakash, Anupam; Margekar, ShubhaLaxmi; Sud, Ritika (2020). "The race to find COVID-19 Vaccine: So near, yet so far!". Indian Journal of Medical Specialities. 11 (4): 175. doi:10.4103/injms.injms_121_20.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Chakraborty, C; Agoramoorthy, G (25 November 2020). "India's cost-effective COVID-19 vaccine development initiatives". Vaccine. 38 (50): 7883–7884. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.056. PMID 33129610.
• Kaur, SP; Gupta, V (15 October 2020). "COVID-19 Vaccine: A comprehensive status report". Virus research. 288: 198114. doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198114. PMID 32800805.
• CTRI/2020/07/026352 Novel Corona Virus-2019-nCov Vaccine by Intradermal Route in Healthy Subjects. [(accessed on 27 July 2020)]; 2020 Available online: http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=45306.

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

U.S. based article?

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

That would be fit for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Please add to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as suggestd above. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Effectiveness / Efficacy — explicit & careful definition required

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

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

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

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

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

update re Sputnik V

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

• New clinical trial data showed the vaccine was 91.4 percent effective on day 28 after the first dose and more than 95 percent effective 42 days later.

• More than 22,000 volunteers have been vaccinated with the first dose and more than 19,000 volunteers with both doses.

• Requests for more than 1.2 billion doses of the Sputnik V vaccine have come from more than 50 countries.
• The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the country’s sovereign wealth fund that is bankrolling the country’s vaccine efforts, said vaccination would be free of charge for Russian citizens beginning next year and about $20 internationally, as Sputnik V is a two dose vaccine.
• The vaccine supplies for the global market will be produced by RDIF’s international partners in India, China, South Korea, Brazil and other countries.

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

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

@Zefr: What about this portion?

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

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

References

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

Neither BioNTech/Pfeizer, Moderna nor Oxford's/AstraZeneca vaccines phase III trial results had been published in peer-reviewed journals to date. The effectivity of these, and Gamaleya's vaccines had only been stated in public releases. All these announces should be treated equally in the article.Tom Paine (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is hilarious, but totally consistent with Wikipedia's role as a megaphone for neocons, that the first vaccinations in Russia are relegated to a footnote, while the British vaccination is proclaimed as a major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.45.254 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps because all credible news sources are holding off on reporting on that vaccine as genuinely credible, in the absence of peer-review, given Russia's history of non-credibility and lack of accountability?Mos2011 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon, but Wiki is hardly a conservative place - quite the opposite; however, the Russian Federation is NOT a democracy, the Putin regime runs in secret from the public and murders opponents, the press is controlled by the government - anything stated without proper validation must be taken with several kilotons of extreme caution. - HammerFimFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

V451

I started a stub article on the UQ/CSL V451 vaccine. However, its details seem very similar to those of the vaccine listed as "SARS-CoV-2 Sclamp" in the table. Are they one and the same? If so, can the entries be merged? -- The Anome (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Update I've now merged the entries, based on this trade press report. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting off deployment?

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

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

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

To avoid secluding this content to a very deep sub-article why not treat this in the COVID-19 pandemic article? Vaccine deployment is the major way in which countries are responding to the epidemic so it is well within the scope of that page. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd encourage against this. There are hundreds of COVID-19 topics and most are not read and/or not well maintained. I'd suggest summarizing key details within this topic and using the national/regional topis (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, D.C.) to properly cover this aspect of the pandemic by region. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would support splitting off a deployment article. This is not likely to be a neglected topic, given the specific interest in this aspect. BD2412 T 03:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine

Was the vaccine in the US was approved and completed clinicals trials? Cwater1 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine table: Annual production?

Does it make sense to add a column for number of doses to be produced, maybe replace clinical trial site and trial duration' with that. I think everyone knows that there are a whole bunch of COVID-19 vaccines, and highly effective too. The question now is, okay, how much? Albertaont (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

EUA outside the USA?

Does EUA apply to other countries, besides the US? --Lysy^talk 18:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lysy, In India they do. See — Amkgp 💬 19:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Astrazeneca approval EUA in the Philippines

Someone need to add EUA application from Astrazeneca in the Philippines. Its waiting for approval. source 120.29.113.75 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

But it mentions wants to apply rather than applied . Another source clarifies that. — Amkgp 💬 04:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's the Sanofi(Pasteur)/GSK vaccine...

You don't talk about the Sanofi(Pasteur)/GSK vaccine? Because it's French I guess; boy, THAT'S low! ~~alainr345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.94.173 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the Sanofi/GSK vaccine be added to our table? Type I/II trials were started in September: https://www.sanofi.com/en/media-room/press-releases/2020/2020-09-03-07-00-00. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the trial registration on CT.gov, it was not yet recruiting participants as of 19 November, so does not meet the start conditions to be entered in the table. Zefr (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, What about ZyCoV-D (Cadila Healthcare)? They seems to have registered only at Clinical Trials Registry – India. See details here. Also, some reports from media and WP:MEDRS See section 7.8. Cadila’s ZyCoV-D vaccine published at European Journal of Pharmacology mentions It is India’s second vaccine, a type of DNA plasmid vaccine expressing SARS-CoV-2 S protein developed by Zydus Cadila Healthcare. Currently, the phase II trial of the candidate vaccine is underway. and still no inclusion in the table. Can I know why so? Thank you — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

AxelBoldt See this too. — Amkgp 💬 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz and Gtoffoletto: clarity on non-inclusion of ZyCov-D. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Interim results of the Type I/II study of the Sanofi/GSK vaccine were announced on December 11 ([14]), so presumably recruiting happened before that date. Maybe they neglected to update clinicaltrials.gov? Alternatively, the "Active, not recruiting" description could mean that they are currently not recruiting, because recruiting for the study has already finished. According to the press release "A total of 440 healthy adults participated in the study, across 10 investigational sites in the United States." AxelBoldt (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

AxelBoldt, What about ZyCov-D? Please see above. If we can include " Unnamed from PLA Academy of Military Science, Walvax Biotech" vaccine candidate with data from China's clinical trial registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) then why not with Clinical Trials Registry – India (http://www.ctri.nic.in/). Thank you — Amkgp 💬 04:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Brilife

I don't see in the list the Brilife vaccine of Israel’s Institute for Biological Research (Phase II) https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-vaccine-clears-first-stage-as-no-major-side-effects-reported/amp/ --Vanlister (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

The IDT Biologika vaccine is now entering phase 2 trials, and has substantial reliable inforfmation available, so ought to be added to the "Clinical trials started in 2020" table. 95.172.224.128 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Amkgp 💬 19:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Novavax adverse effects

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

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

---

Canada

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

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

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

Quoting from the horse's mouth: In order to facilitate timely access to promising COVID-19 drugs, the Interim Order introduces a mechanism for the Minister to allow the importation of promising COVID-19 drugs for placement in Canadian facilities prior to their market authorization in Canada, referred to as pre-positioning. This mechanism may be used to import a promising COVID-19 drug into Canada if the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has notified the Minister of a need to pre-position a COVID-19 drug and the Government of Canada has a procurement agreement for the purchase of the drug. In addition, the manufacturer of the drug must have filed an application for market authorization with Health Canada under the Interim Order or the Food and Drug Regulations, or filed an application for market authorization with a foreign regulatory authority. [15]. Please read the rest of the link for more details. Regardless of headline wording in other sources, it's pretty much an EUA equivalent. Adrian two (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Ad5-nCoV adverse reactions

I added the more accurate information from the Lancet paper, but it was reverted by User:Albertaont. See the diff here: [16]

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

The paper related to this question is the one below.

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

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

References

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

Changes to Cost section

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

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

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

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