Talk:COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gorilla, not Chimpanzee

Please correct the adenoviral vector for the Italian vaccine candidate "GRAd-COV2" developed by ReiThera and the "Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases" in the second table from chimpanzee to gorilla derived. See e.g. the second reference given in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.168.151 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the table of the vaccines in trials?

The table is not there at all. Sources are still there, so the content must be there, but again, there's no visible table no Wikipedia. WTF? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 15:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's still there. You just need to click the 'show' link in the last cell. Might be worth revising the collapsed layout a bit:

COVID‑19 candidate vaccines in Phase I–III trials

Vaccine candidates, developers, and sponsors	Country of origin	Type (technology)	Current phase (participants) design	Completed phase (participants) Immune response	Pending authorization
Novavax COVID-19 vaccine (Covovax) Novavax, CEPI	United States	Subunit (SARS‑CoV‑2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle with adjuvant)	Phase III (45,000) Randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial Sep 2020 – Jan 2021, UK (15,000); December 2020 – Mar 2021, US, Mexico, (30,000);	Emergency (4) Canada EU Ukraine USA	Emergency (2) Canada EU

...that's the traditional collapsed table view but I prefer including a border so it's clear there's a table. This is another alternative with the border but it also pulls in the header row. Still may be a small improvement over the current solution...

COVID‑19 candidate vaccines in Phase I–III trials
Vaccine candidates, developers, and sponsors	Country of origin	Type (technology)	Current phase (participants) design	Completed phase (participants) Immune response	Pending authorization
Novavax COVID-19 vaccine (Covovax) Novavax, CEPI	United States	Subunit (SARS‑CoV‑2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle with adjuvant)	Phase III (45,000) Randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial Sep 2020 – Jan 2021, UK (15,000); December 2020 – Mar 2021, US, Mexico, (30,000);	Emergency (4) Canada EU Ukraine USA	Emergency (2) Canada EU

- Wikmoz (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a column for WHO assessment status?

https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/key-resources/documents/status-covid-19-vaccines-within-who-eulpq-evaluation-process

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-human animals

This expression, "non-human animals" seems redundant, can you please explain it? Jackieneumann (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not redundant. Humans are animals. If you want to refer to non-human animals, then you need to say that. Assuming that "animals" excludes humans is a relic of religious thinking from the dark ages. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

EpiVacCorona

The article states that Phase III clinical trials of the EpiVacCorona vaccine are being conducted Nov 2020 - Dec 2021 with the participation of 40,000 people. According to official figures[1], these tests are being carried out Nov 2020 - Sep 2021 with the participation of 3,000 people. --Сайга20К (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This could be a part of the phase III study. In registration certificate issued by Rospotrebnadzor it was stated that post-clinical trials would involve up to 40.000 people. I doubt there will be 40.000 in the end of the day, but so far this is the only official number. ClinicalTrials is not a comprehensive source, they do not include all the trials (for example there is no information on trials for the third Russian vaccine - CoviVac)Yarscat (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine for animals

Russia registered COVID-19 vaccine for animals [2] [3]. I'm not sure if this should be on the COVID-19 vaccine page but ...Yarscat (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also came across such news of 1st COVID-19 vaccine for animals. Please include it if its suitable. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6E5:A642:8959:6ADB:B38F:BA55 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Please make the correction suggested in the earlier "Gorilla, not Chimpanzee" section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.41.253 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split tables

Just for the sake of discussion, I'd like to propose removing the tables of vaccines currently present in this article, and any relevant information regarding the trials themselves, to COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials or similar. Currently, the tables take up approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the prose of this article, and can be replaced with more succinct tables which summarize prose information about the most significant trials - both successes and failures. I don't have the time to work on this right now, but I may in the next week or two - and I can mock a replacement for this article up if people would support this sort of split - but if not, I'd not use time on it. Thoughts? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that if the tables are being maintained, it is because their information is relevant. But they could be moved to a separate article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a poor choice of wording on my part User:Ftrebien - I meant to say that information pertaining to the trials beyond a summary style overview of the trials overall would be moved with the tables to a new article solely about the clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines. I think that there is more than enough encyclopedic information about the trials themselves, reactions to them, variations in them, conduction of them... etc. to allow for the creation of another article - and the tables with a little bit of prose could be moved as a start for such. I didn't mean that any information currently in the tables here isn't relevant - I'm merely proposing an editorial decision to split the majority of "in the weeds" (but still encyclopedic!) information into its own article and using the guidance at WP:Summary style to summarize the trials in a couple to few paragraphs here of prose and maybe a side-bar table or two of summary information such as dates/conclusion/status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think many readers of this article want to quickly eyeball what the vaccines are and how they differ, so I think the current vaccines table should stay. A case could be made for moving the table of not-yet-approved vaccines elsewhere. I'm not sure if we really should split yet another article out of this one being that we've already split out three, but maybe it could go to the bottom of List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations, with the article being renamed to reflect the expanded scope. I'm not sure yet that that's the way to go. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried collapsing the table of non-approved vaccines, but I'm not sure if that's a great solution either. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): that's even worse, the Show button is hard to find even when I knew it must have been there (!), and it defeats Cmd/Ctrl+F searching of the article. Please revert this. What problem is it trying to solve? jhawkinson (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): re " maybe this makes the show button less easy to miss?". Not appreciably no. Having it all the way to the far edge is not sufficiently visible. It's kind of OK in the V/T/E templates because there is a lot of space around it, and also because users are used to expanding those templates, and they are rarely collapsed where they matter. This situation kind of fails all of those characteristics. jhawkinson (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with keeping a table containing the type, doses, storage, and number of countries full/emergency authorization has been given in here - but data on the country of origin, specific labs/companies involved (other than those for whom each is named), and the specifics of the studies are not what people would be looking for - like you said, they're looking for differences, not details here. The end goal here is to turn it into prose with a small table on the side (which I'll mock up here) for quick key differences, and then split the details beyond summary into another article - and maybe using the current authorizations split would be best renamed and used for this purpose. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons stated prior to this being offered as a "proposal" (it is frustrating that you ignored them there and launched a new section): "I found the information I wanted conveniently and easily in the tables and it would have taken me much longer to do so in narrative prose. I support retaining the tables as they are." jhawkinson (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried collapsing the table of non-authorized vaccines, but I don't really like that solution very much. There is a valid point that the table takes up a huge amount of vertical space in the center of the article, and makes it likely readers will get lost before they reach the Efficacy section. Given that we seem to be actually including all 73 vaccines in clinical trials, it might actually be reasonable to split it to a new article and keep just the approved ones (probably as an excerpt) here. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): At the risk of repeating myself above overmuch, I think your "solution" is much worse than where we were before, and I would ask you to revert it. (p.s.: What does "[j]ust for the sake of discussion" mean? It seems like we are seriously considering changes, not talking about them for the sake of talking.) jhawkinson (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The main vaccine table is one of the strongest features of the topic. When weighing a topic split, I think we dramatically overestimate the challenge associated with scrolling. It's not that significant, especially when the TOC makes it very easy to jump to a relevant section. The solution (a topic split) creates a definite burden for the user... locating relevant topic content across multiple entries, navigating between multiple pages and TOCs. In this case, I like John's collapsed table solution. I think there's a slightly better way to do it so the "SHOW" link appears next to the title. However, if there's a push to remove the clinical trial content, I'd favor using the existing History of COVID-19 vaccine development § Trials and moving the content there, perhaps reverting the topic's name to COVID-19 vaccine development. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikmoz: I feel the same way - I don't think any of the content is bad nor that it should be just deleted wholly - I think that we should work towards moving the "in the weeds" content to subarticles (such as development of and list of articles) and then reduce this table on this article to a summary per WP:SS. I don't propose we replace this table with a new, pared-down one until we have worked out exactly where all the removed information will be going, and added an appropriate "see also" or "for further" hatnote is placed at the top of the section. Then, a couple paragraphs of prose can describe the most significant "in the weeds" information for the varying vaccines, again per WP:SS suggestions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've drafted this up as to what it would look like on User:Berchanhimez/COVtable - still have the wrapping issues to resolve and I think the color should be re-added to the clinical trials section, but the point here is that we can convey the most important information in a floated table (left or right) and then direct readers to the individual articles or the list of COVID19 vaccines for the "full" table with all the information remaining. We also don't need to include every associated company/organization - only the major ones for which it is known. We also also don't need to put that it's "inactivated SARS-COV-2" for example - nobody is going to think that it's inactivated varicella in a COVID-19 vaccine, so it's useless. Same applies for saying "viral vector" when "vector" (linked to the page on such) conveys the same information - not to mention exactly which adenovirus was used is not appropriate for this article. We must remember that when sections like this get long, best practice is to split and summarize the information here in the main article. Please take a look at what I removed and comment as to if there's any summary style information that needs to be re-added. And no, full trial information (ex: number of participants and exact results) is not summary style. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Misspelled names

In the Actresses and actors section, why are some names intentionally misspelled? (It seems intentional since the misspelled names are linked to the correct spelling.) I am looking at Arsinio, Catrell, Rosselini [sic]. If there is no reason, can someone fix these? Ebony Jackson (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I see no reason whatsoever for these wrong spellings, so I fixed them. Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

New viral vector vaccine article needs expansion

I've created a short article on Viral vector vaccine, a topic very important for COVID-19 vaccines. Please help expand it! If you contribute text in the next week, you will get DYK credit for it too. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Add details about the inconsistent existence and use of INNs for COVID-19 vaccines.

WHO international non-proprietary names: the need to distinguish COVID-19 vaccines https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00099-4 2600:1000:B02A:338:806F:EA38:C4EB:38C3 (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2021 (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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No information about possible side effects

I have never contributed to an article on Wikipedia and appreciate that it is a lot of work to keep up with Covid-19 topics. But I would like to point out that this page is the ONLY page about vaccines that I have found on Wikipedia without ANY information about adverse effects/side effects of vaccines. According to the talk page here and the version history, the entire column on adverse effects was removed from the table in November 2020. Adverse effects should be on the individual vaccine page from then on. The quality, structure and amount of information on these individual pages is extremely variable. Some mention side effects, others do not. The page on Sputnik V mentions several times that there were "no unusual" side effects in the trials. An article in "The Lancet" is cited as the source for this. However, in the discussion here on this page, a text about side effects is retracted because this very source is considered unreliable. For months there has been a lack of clear and comprehensive information about Covid vaccines including side effects in general and about the individual vaccines in particular. Unintentional or not, this casts a bad light on the quality of the articles and that of all things on the most controversial topic since Pepsi vs. Coke. The public interest is strongly focussed on vaccines and their possible side effects, but here on Wikipedia you will not find any useful information. That has to change, I think. 62.46.64.94 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an overview page which reports the most significant information from daughter pages (i.e. those on each individual vaccine). Given that the only side effects proven right now are those expected and common to all vaccines, there is no need to mention that in this overview article. If you think they are not covered appropriately in their daughter articles, please post at those talkpages - but this is an overview about the development and use of the vaccines, not about each one's side effects (which to this point, are barely notable to begin with given they're the typical "immune response" side effects of any vaccine). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer. You suggest, that there is no need to mention side effects on this Overview page, but they are mentioned on many of other overview pages for vaccines – see Tetanus, Malaria, Polio, Ebola … (just a quick search I did). Don't get me wrong, I'm not an opponent of vaccinations and I'm not trying to make the side effects seem bigger than they are. But as it stands, there is not even a hint that the discussion of side effects (real or not) is one of the most important issues in the world. Instead, the only reference to side effects in the table is again the entry that Sputnik V does not have any worth mentioning. The source for this is the same magazine that was found to be unreliable elsewhere here. Does that not make you, and all involved, question the quality of the information presented here? On the daughter pages, as I mentioned already, there is no reliable information either. You suggest that I should therefore propose changes on each single one of these pages. That alone is a clear indication that there MUST be an "overview" of side effects and discussion of them on the OVERVIEW page. Seriously, there is a whole chapter on the social effects where you can read that Dolly Parton filmed herself being vaccinated. But neither on this page, nor in the daugther articles is a single useful piece of information about side effects being reported, investigated and controversially discussed. In your response to my post here, you write that there are no significant side effects. Even that would be more information than you can currently find. You should at least publish that then, preferably with a citation. 62.46.64.94 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

None of those are overview pages - they are the pages for those specific vaccines. You'll note that for example, Boostrix, Twinrix, Poliovax, etc are all redirects to the article about that vaccine as a whole. Whether there is enough on individual vaccines to spin them out or not is not something that concerns this discussion, but the point is that those are not summary/list articles, they are full blown articles. And no, it's not an indication - because we don't "summarize then specify", we specify first and then work on summaries. If you wish to provide a short sentence or paragraph that summarizes the (primarily lack of) side effects generally, please feel free to do so and I'll be happy to add it if it meets WP:MEDRS and isn't overly long - I think you're right that we shouldn't have to wait, but at the same time, your time is likely better spent getting details about the (lack of) side effects in each sub article before attempting to add it here. You've mentioned that the source for Sputnik has been "found to be unreliable elsewhere here" - maybe I'm just blind, but I can't see that discussion - if you could link it to me, I'd be happy to (assuming your representation is correct) remove that statement or source altogether. I unfortunately don't have the time to do the in-depth research necessary for formulating a paragraph/section on all vaccines right now, and again, it would be better to put such information in the daughter articles first. Maybe someone else will have the time to do so and then create a summary here, but very few of the vaccine sub-articles are semi-protected - meaning even you (as an unregistered user) can edit them to add information. I'll post some more on your talk page about registering/editing because it seems you're here to improve things and we can always use more editors interested in medical articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, I don't quite follow your first argument: It is true that the links lead to the overview page of the whole vaccine. But on each single one of these overview pages, the side effects are addressed and described. Your own examples: DPT_vaccine#Side_effects, Polio_vaccine#Side_effects, Hepatitis_B_vaccine#Side_effects (Twinrix is a brand name and combination of two vaccines. Side effects are described on the overview page of general vaccines against A or B) That there are no side effects is unfortunately not true and they are indeed listed in all other articles on vaccines, just not here apparently. Even the worldwide discussion about side effects is completely ignored. Instead there is a discussion here about artists and the spelling of their names. I don't understand that. I don't mean to impute anything to anyone. I just think that the focus and overview has been lost here. Maybe also a bit of objectivity. The info about side effects was deleted from the table with the decision to insert them on the respective daughter pages. This never happened. So now information has simply been lost. Hopefully, this is an exception. Maybe it helps to take a step back and get an overview. I just wanted to try to draw attention to something that I think is missing. It would be a shame if Wikipedia, of all places, gave the impression of being biased.

Unfortunately I can't find the exact discussion about whether a source is reliable or not I mentioned earlier. But the article in question was this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31605-6/fulltext 62.46.64.94 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I recently stumbled upon this, which seems to contain some more authoritative/informed concerns about (possible) side effects than what you can expect from a generic novaxer (this source could also be less relevant for english speaking countries, but seems relatively recent). It also has more to do with the fast approval and clarity of information than with specific side effects, so it would be more fitting for a general article, but is also pretty specific and it may be helpfull for finding references for vaccine-specific articles. I am not familiar enough with the subject and policies in this kind of articles to even judge if and how this source or referred ones should be added, but thought that dropping the link here wouldn't hurt. The article currently gives a summary of a lot of informations that aren't really specific to COVID vaccines, which at this time seems a sensible choice, and a quick mention of common/expected side effects of vaccines in general with eventual wikilinks seems similarly justified (I recently heard an otherwise reasonably educated person comparing someone who was kept longer(couple of hours) under observation due to risk of allergic reactions with someone who wasn't, but experienced flu/cold like symptoms for three days after vaccination; my poor understanding is that both are commonly expected possible vaccine side effects, but that this is like comparing apples and oranges, and that even a quick summary of the subject in this article could be useful). Personuser (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized I wasn't logged in before. Thank you for shareing the link. I tried to point out that in my opinion some information is missing. Information that should be based on reliable sources. Unfortunatly that's the opposite of what Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, founder of Doctors for Covid Ethics from you link has to offer. Conte0815 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not explaining this well, so forgive me - but something is either an "overview" (or summary) page, or it is a "specific" page. WP:SS is the guideline for what to do when there are "trees" of pages - and information should be added to daughter pages then summarized in the main article. All of those articles you link to have no daughters that the side effects would be appropriate for. I also agree that there's a poor focus here, but the solution to that, per WP:SS, is to develop the daughter articles, then use those daughter articles to form the summary-style article here as an overview. The information hasn't been lost - it's all available in the page history and you can "edit" an old version to copy the information out, then "paste" it in another page if you want - just don't save the old version here after you copy it out, and make sure you note in the edit summary that you copied from an old version of this page (for copyright reasons). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I got it, thank you very much! I don't think I'm qualified to make changes to medical topics, certainly not on a site with more than 20000 views per day. In trying to be helpful, I wasted your time, sorry about that. I know more about other topics and will try to find some time to contribute. I really appreciate the work and time that you and everyone else puts in. I thank you for it. And thank you for taking the time to help me understand the challenges of maintaining this site. Conte0815 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What is a side effect rather than a mere coincidence? Since millions of people have been vaccinated including many very elderly and sick people, it is inevitable that some of them will suffer adverse events (including death) within a short period of time after receiving the vaccine. So one has the problem of distinguishing the signal of a true side effect from the noise of such coincidental events. And to be worthy of notice, a side effect must rise above the expected level of pain, inflammation and fatigue which result from anything intended to stimulate the immune system which is usually an acceptable cost for reducing the risk of the disease. Do you have a reliable source for such a significant side effect for any of these vaccines? JRSpriggs (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think trials are pretty much designed with the problem of "noise" in mind, if mild side effects are worth mentioning is debatable. The discussion Conte0815 is referring to seems to be Talk:COVID-19_vaccine/Archive_2#RfC. A lot of informations about side-effects was later removed, starting with this edit, mostly on the basis of being based on primary sources. It seems the information was removed, but the references where left, so I guess that they should be removed too (unless they are deemed reliable for other informations) and adding side effects back would require different ones. For the Sputnik V side effects the used reference seems another one[4], which may have the same problem. (Hope this is more useful than my previous comment) Personuser (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Guess primarly sources are good for statements about a trial itself or of the type "x reported y", but not for supporting the results and apart from possible particular issues this seems well handled. Some sources we are already using [5][6] seem more appropriate, but are pretty cautious about how they report side effects (one stresses how different studies shouldn't be directly compared, naturally full lists of side effect look way more scary than they actually are and adding "pain in the injection site" for every vaccine seems just silly; what we would really need are probably meta-studies or similar). I still think a general side-effects section, if well handled, could be useful. Personuser (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese admit Sinopharm and Sinovac efficacy is poor

--Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

His statement has been kinda of misintpreted. He was comparing the chinese vaccines to the mRNA vaccines. While you compare it to the mRNA vaccines, they do have poor efficacy. he closest text I could find to the full statement is from Reuters :

The currently available vaccines “don’t have very high rates of protection”, Gao Fu, the director of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a conference in the Chinese city of Chengdu on Saturday.

“Inoculation using vaccines of different technical lines is being considered,” he said.

Gao said that taking steps to “optimise” the vaccine process including changing the number of doses and the length of time between doses was a “definite” solution to the efficacy issues.Bold text

He later said that it was a "complete misunderstanding" , yes I know China Gov may have pressure him but based on the statement above, it does make sense. Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC) .Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Platforms being developed in 2020 involved nucleic acid technologies (nucleoside-modified messenger RNA and DNA)

Platforms being developed in 2020 involved nucleic acid technologies (nucleoside-modified messenger RNA and DNA) - should this line include DNA since I don't think any vaccine being developed is trying to modify DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.193.138 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Novavax's vaccine is in fact 60% effective in South Africa but not against the South African variant. The wiki is reffering to a British Medical Journal NEWS article.Here is the actual study

Relevant quote:

"Efficacy in HIV-negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI: 19.9 to 80.1), and did not differ by baseline serostatus. Of the primary endpoint cases with available whole genome sequencing, 38 (92.7%) of 41 were the B.1.351 variant. Post-hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI: - 0.6 to 76.2) in HIV-negative participants."

I would suggest to replace the 60% with the actual figure of 51% but also precise that this isonly for HIV-Negative participants. I would also add that BMJ probably assumed that since most of infection in S-A are from B.1.351 variant effiacy in S-A is equal to effiacy against B.1.351 , however I have found no data to accurately know what share of infection were caused by this variant in S-A at the period when the study was conducted. Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A pre-print of a primary study is not an acceptable source per WP:MEDRS (both because it is primary and because it is a pre-print). This needs to appear in a review article, per the requirements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RandomCanadian, the source cited to states on the page "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." This is indicia that the source lacks necessary peer review and is incomplete. When the findings have achieved peer review and are upheld, then the final article could be used to support the study's findings. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's just non-sense sorry. The source that is provided is just a NEWS article which just report the study. Also, a press release is no different than a study.I just want to be clear that the study is made by Novavax, therefore it's as valid as a press release. (A [press-release] actually shared the study findings but didn't shared the 51% efficacy and said "an overall efficacy of 48.6% against predominantly variant strains". At some point I would even stay this is a bit hypocrit, there is plenty of efficacy from chinese vaccines with no public study available, but an actual pre-print is not authorised. It's the same for the Pfizer efficacy trial in S-A, not peer reviewed, either.

CDC: 5,800 COVID-19 infections, 74 deaths in fully vaccinated people

QUESTIONS: Is the following reference worth adding in some way to the article? - or not? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That source is behind a paywall (which in principle isn't a problem) and doesn't really seem specialized in the medical field; even if informations from it were worth mentioning (and if they are we should at least be carefull about how to put them in the right context), using the original CDC report on which they are probably based seems a better solution. You used a ref name, is it already used in some other article? Personuser (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser: and others - yes - seems there are many other related "WP:RS" as well - other references - and also a related "Google Search" - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: - yes - WP:RS is different from WP:RSMED, and being mentioned in different WP:RS or other sources doesn't automatically make a WP:RSMED more or less reliable or relevant to the article. Still thank you for the effort and stay safe/healthy. Personuser (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pregnant people

I removed a paragraph about pregnant people, which I believe couldn't be kept the way it was, still I believe a better treatment of the subject would be appropriate. One way it could be fitted in this article is a section about actual or proposed vaccination strategies. This may be more fitting for the Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines article, which currently doesn't seem to mention pregnancy at all. As for safety concerns I quickly found this, which should be reliable, albeit tailored to the situation in USA. Any thoughts about how to address these subjects, especially from more medically savvy editors are welcomed. Personuser (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Efficacy update needed

Can anyone update the results of Covaxin efficacy at COVID-19 vaccine § Efficacy bearing WP:MEDRS and other COVID-19 article norms. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Valneva news

This appears to indicate progress by Valneva that hasn't been included in the article yet: "Valneva Initiates Phase 3 Clinical Trial for its Inactivated, Adjuvanted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, VLA2001" —Naddy (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Biased language/edit of semi-protected

"As of April 2021, 13 vaccines are authorized by at least one national regulatory authority for public use: two RNA vaccines (the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine), five conventional inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, CoronaVac, Covaxin, WIBP-CorV and CoviVac), four viral vector vaccines (Sputnik V, the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, Convidecia, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), and two protein subunit vaccines (EpiVacCorona and RBD-Dimer)."

Not a huge bias in language choice, but including "the" and "vaccine" on only certain options seems biased. 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

(second sentence of the second paragraph of the header) 74.104.188.4 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the ones with the and vaccine share the name with their parent company or companies, but the ones without it have a unique name. Also, the wording you disputed has been removed by someone. 4D4850 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no information about vaccine use, for those under 18?

The Section/subject title says it all.--213.113.123.236 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite busy IRL so I don't have time for about the next week or so, but if I can find some time this is something I have intended to update. If anyone else has time, I think the best way to include this is by adding a "pediatrics" section to the table on authorizations - and specifying the age range(s) in which each vaccine is authorized. Otherwise, I intend to update this when I have time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Abkhazia to the list

Yesterday, on May 12, vaccination began in Abkhazia. 14 people were vaccinated in the first day. https://sputnik-abkhazia.ru/Abkhazia/20210512/1032400451/Vaktsinatsiya-ot-koronavirusnoy-infektsii-nachalas-v-Abkhazii.htmlGenioh 07 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

efficacy and effectiveness tables

Would be useful to have information on comparative efficacy of different vaccines to prevent asymptomatic infection or transmission of the virus. Likewise, the “effectiveness” table has data about RNA vaccines preventing asymptomatic infection, but not about the DNA vaccines. Bwrs (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Complications of the vaccine

Both the US CDC and Israeli officials have reported cases of people under 30 getting myocarditis, a heart inflammation that causes Chest pain rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), Shortness of breath at rest or during physical activity, Fluid retention with swelling of your legs, ankles and feet fatigue, headache, body aches, joint pain, a sore throat, Fever, Fainting, Breathing difficulties, and rapid breathing.91.196.124.230 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the most recent sources I found about the subject is this. It's a case study and I'm not sure it would qualify as a WP:MEDRS, but it gives a summary of related literature and should be better than Reuteurs or The Guardian. It doesn't suggest these cases are frequent or clear enough to be mentioned in this article. Personuser (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasn't been proven, isn't higher than the "expected" rate according to all sources I can find (presumably they all mean not significantly higher than rate in non-vaccinated population). We don't attempt to predict what's going to happen or be proven, and it's not due weight to talk about all these "scares". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it hasn't been proven? I actually was myself diagnosed with it in connection to my Pfizer vaccine, hence why I'm a bit defensive. Here are more sources to better prove it's not a hoax since you sound like you don't believe me. 91.196.124.230 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you weren't. Doctors don't diagnose things like that and say, before the science is there, that it's "in connection to" something. You may have gotten it with a temporal correlation to your Pfizer vaccine - but there's some small number of people who get myocarditis every day in the world - and what the science says so far is that these events are no more likely to happen in someone who got a vaccine than someone who didn't - making it virtually impossible that the vaccine is causing them. Because if the vaccine was causing them, you'd see a significantly higher (but still small, mind you) number of events in post-vaccine people. Millions of doses of Pfizer (and other) vaccines have been administered - if they were causing myocarditis, we'd see a much higher number. Regardless, your sources all say the same thing - a link hasn't been proven and the rate in vaccinated individuals isn't higher than the background rate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to directly quote the NYT article here (because it's probably paywalled for some people): “It may simply be a coincidence that some people are developing myocarditis after vaccination,” said Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York. “It’s more likely for something like that to happen by chance, because so many people are getting vaccinated right now.” - specifically the line about how it's more likely to be a coincidence because of random chance than an actual issue. Remember this - most cases of myocarditis are mild and many don't even get diagnosed - however, people after vaccination are on the lookout for any symptom at all - however minor and regardless of if they would've ignored it had they not been vaccinated. This is likely leading to this "scare" that's really a big nothing burger. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me clarify what my heart doctor told me. He said the dead virus cells from the vaccine travelled to my heart caused anti-bodies to be sent there to defend my immunity. That reaction and the removal of those dead virus cells caused my heart to panic and enlarge causing the myocarditis from the over reaction of my body. That caused the chest pain, shortness of breath, fever and all other symptoms including a spot on my arm that got hot to the touch think about 100 degrees with swollen flesh on that area about 2 inches above the rest of the skin. Hope about for now you keep an open mind and lets stay tuned. I have a feeling more sources and scientific evidence are soon to come and you'll eat your words. For now I'll leave it off. ~~

The Pfizer vaccine does not contain "dead virus cells" - so either you're lying here, or your doctor is not fit to be practicing. But yes, hearts get inflamed all the time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That is truthfully what the doctor said. Thanks.91.196.124.230 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but a cardiologist would not fully understand how the immune system works - it's not their area of expertise. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why has the Approved AstraZeneca Vaccine been excluded from the ‘Effectiveness’ section?

Seriously, this section is very unbalanced and odd considering there is an extensive amount of peer reviewed data on Astrazeneca effectiveness. Also, even more bizarre is the fact that the Chinese and Russian vaccines have been listed while excluding the AZ jab.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the study you cited a single-dose study? If there is a double-dose study, may be better to put under "effectiveness", since this is going to significantly understate the AZ shot's efficacy. Albertaont (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is, so it is not comparable with the other studies in the table. However, as the data is very relevant, I added it in prose instead. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Added. This study was published on 27/4 but the section was initially expanded on 21/4, so the information about the study was never removed, it was simply missing. As for the comparison table, we're still lacking data that can be compared to what the other studies have revealed so far. I don't think this is an issue of neutrality. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood, I’ll remove the neutrality tag. Oh, and Public Health England have released data on the AZ double dose effectiveness. Essentially, there seems to be no more than 1% effectiveness difference between the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs (both single dose and double).Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Added. As explained earlier in the Efficacy section, precise comparisons are not possible at the moment because methodologies are different. Pfizer's statistic, for example, merges asymptomatic and symptomatic cases into a single statistic variable (ok, but not ideal), while PHE uncoupled them (ideal, but PHE currently only has data for symptomatic cases after the second dose). This is also why the confidence interval is important. For symptomatic cases, the confidence intervals of AZ in England and Pfizer in Israel overlap, so it is possible that in reality they are closer than the current estimate suggests. Some of the difference is also likely to be due to the prevalent variants in each of these locations at the time the data was collected. For all other estimates without confidence intervals, we simply cannot be sure how accurate they are. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine Numbers

What is going on with the vaccine numbers? some countries have their total single doses, whereas others have the amount of people given both doses. Germany and the UK is one example. Germany has single doses, UK has the number of people with second doses......147.12.252.202 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Effectiveness by severity of COVID-19 table

Why is Pfizer "not reported"?

Is it that we consider the sources unreliable?

"The vaccine was 100% effective against severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 95.3% effective against severe COVID-19 as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

"In clinical trials, the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing severe disease. In late March, a small CDC study that enrolled 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers showed the vaccine to be 90% effective upon full immunization (at least 14 days after the second dose) in real-world conditions." https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison

That's just the two first links google found for me. So I genuinely need to ask: what's up? CapnZapp (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Adverse effects

It's odd that there is no section or column for adverse effects. Searching the talk archives, there was apparently some discussion about an adverse effects column that was previously in one of the tables, but no indication as to what the outcome of that discussion was or where the data went. The common adverse effects for the approved vaccines are benign and I think that scrubbing the article of those adverse effects actually raises more doubt in the minds of those who are hesitant than it would to include them in the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

COVIran

COVIran needs to be added.Doyna Yar (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

183.83.211.253 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Pls for COVID Vaccine authorisations In mRNA Vaccine mark India green as India has approved moderna violet colour is for pfizer

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Move line to correct section

The "Vaccine Hesitancy" section ends with the line:

"In an effort to demonstrate the vaccine's safety, prominent politicians have received it on camera, with others pledging to do so."

I believe this line would be better placed in the "Encouragement by public figures and celebrities" section. Either by placing it between the:

"Many public figures and celebrities have publicly declared that they have been vaccinated against COVID‑19, and encouraged people to get vaccinated."

and

"Many have made video recordings or otherwise documented their vaccination. They do this partly to counteract vaccine hesitancy and COVID‑19 vaccine conspiracy theories."

lines, or merging it with those two.

If merged, I would propose:

"Many public figures and celebrities have encouraged people to get vaccinated by publicly declared that they have been vaccinated against COVID‑19, and by making video recordings, receiving it on camera, or otherwise documented their vaccination, with others pledging to do so. They do this partly to counteract vaccine hesitancy and COVID‑19 vaccine conspiracy theories."

Both of these sections are intrinsically linked, but as they are given their own clearly defined sections, the first line should be in the section dedicated to its topic. Wild dog94 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Vaccine hesitancy section

The first sentence in "Vaccine hesitancy" section ("Some 10% of the public perceives vaccines as unsafe or unnecessary and refuse vaccination, which increases the risk of further viral spread that could lead to COVID‑19 outbreaks.") evokes thoughts that the talk is about the covid vaccines. However enclosed sources (Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger J (August 2013). and "Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year". World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. ) are both from time before covid-19 has emerged. None of the sources mentions covid 19. This sources are talking about different vaccines against different diseases and from these sources we cannot know how many percent of the public perceives COVID vaccines as unsafe or unnecessary, nor can we get information out of these sources, that this "increases the risk of further viral spread that could lead to COVID-19 outbreaks" Therefore I suggest deleting this misleading sentence from article or providing adequate sources for claims stated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.74.149 (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC) <be>

 Done ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

List of side effects

As a reader of this article I was expecting a section on the (serious, but rare) side effects: the type of side effect, frequency, and other information. Or at least a reference to a separate page (if it exists).

Side effects are not even mentioned. Many health authorities have been open about them and vaccination programmes have changed as a result (for example, in Denmark).

For instance, the myocarditis article does have a reference.

(One of the side effects has its own page (mentioned in passing in the Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines article), but it is not easy to find as a reader.)

In there a particular reason?

--Mortense (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's not many significant side effects to begin with in the first place. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 21:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe there could be a segment on side effects, but it may be a bit difficult to format it in an easy-to-digest way. Most side-effects depend on which vaccine was used and, especially, the type of vaccine (RNA, Inactivated virus...). A lot of the information on the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine can be found in other vaccine articles such as on the RNA page and the Vaccine page. More information can probably be found on the reference pages of each vaccine's trials. Also, you mentioned "serious, but rare" side effects: these can be hard to find a proper source until Phase IV trials end (I suppose?), so we would have to look into more generic (vaccination)articles (that also apply to the COVID-19 vaccines) to find good sources for the information. Either way, better info can be found on other pages for now. ZorasSon (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed here a few times already, but an over-aggressive auto-archiver keeps hiding the discussions. Here's what I wrote about it on 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC):

It's odd that there is no section or column for adverse effects. Searching the talk archives, there was apparently some discussion about an adverse effects column that was previously in one of the tables, but no indication as to what the outcome of that discussion was or where the data went. The common adverse effects for the approved vaccines are benign and I think that scrubbing the article of those adverse effects actually raises more doubt in the minds of those who are hesitant than it would to include them in the article.

There definitely needs to be a side effects section if for no other reason than to at least show that the subject has been considered by this article. The number of readers who keep leaving comments here regarding its absence demonstrate that. There are some side effects that are common to most of them, such as arm soreness. I'm starting a section in the article as a stub and let's see how it develops. Then we can decide what form it should take based on content. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose any discussion of general "COVID-19 vaccine" side effects unless there is a WP:MEDRS source that specifically addresses that exact topic, which is extremely unlikely since different vaccines can have slightly different side-effects and so the topic is not amenable to that kind of broad, generalized discussion (although the NHS does lump together[7] the few UK-approved vaccines for such a discussion). For that reason Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to do it either in lieu of sources. Side effects for each vaccine can be treated in detail, and accurately, at each vaccine's article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that argument extend to any generalised discussion about COVID vaccines? Such as the article as a whole? - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes & no - the article is mostly describing specifics, not generalizing in ways askew of sources. (The Efficacy section for example is almost a case study in the avoidance of generalization). Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So specifics about the main side effects per vaccine would be ok, if there was no generalisations? - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably, but I see Sparkie82 has decided to edit-war their synthesized content in; they have been alerted to the DS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the new the section and have gotten edit conflicts as I am adding stuff to it, which is really disruptive. The section is a stub. Please give me time to add content rather than try to comment/clobber partial information as it is added. (I'm not a speed-writer.) Generally, the section is structured as: intro (general/common side effects), followed rare/specific side effects. After I get some stuff in the section, then go ahead comment/correct. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 08:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not edit warring -- we're getting edit conflicts because I am working on a new section which requires a long time to add content with refs, etc. and others are trying to comment/change things while I'm working on it. Please assume good faith and let the section get to a point where it actually has some content in it first. Sparkie82 (t•c) 08:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I got the section started with enough content (I think) to see what it might look like and to have something to critique. I'm taking a break, so go ahead, have at it.Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Encouragement by public figures and celebrities

This sections seems to be a pure WP:OR. I propose to shorten it significantly. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see several verifying sources throughout that section. What parts specifically do you want to remove?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine for young children

There is a trial right now [8] (and this info should be included), but why did not they start such trials for children much earlier, almost in parallel with the trials for adults? Is it just a blunder, or there was a serious reason? Obviously, not vaccinating kids timely will significantly increase the development of pandemic right now. This seems to be a very serious blunder by vaccine developers and authorities, which was based on the erroneous (in this case) tradition that the vaccine for children should be developed after the vaccine for adults. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your source has a paywall. Are there any other sources you can provide? My understanding is that pediatric vaccines take longer to develop, and adolescents typically have a stronger immune system, so they are not typically the first group to get a vaccine made. For example, the lowest age Phizer is approved for right now is age 12.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I mean children younger than 12 years, and I know the rest you mentioned, but this does not prevents the timely development of vaccines for kids, for example by making the parallel trials for people of different age. Looking at this, I can see a "rationale", i.e. O’Ryan is not the only one concerned about using valuable vaccines to inoculate children, when more vulnerable populations around the world are still struggling to secure supplies.. This is a questionable rationale for countries like US, where there is a sufficient supply of vaccine, and all children had to be vaccinated prior to going to the school this year. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources claimed it to be questionable rationale though? Right now it's just seeming like your original research. We can probably add more information about the vaccine as it applies to children under 12, but we can't say anything about the rationale of it without a WP:RS.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I also think another factor is probably vaccine hesitancy. Among practicing physicians, 96% have been vaccinated, but the rate drops to <50% among nurses, and even more among aides, especially in nursing homes, even though outbreaks and deaths have been the worst in that setting (Forbes). Perhaps the vaccine market for children just isn't large enough. Again though, we'd need a reliable source to make the claim if we were to use it.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure, the hesitancy is the major factor, but it only makes vaccination of young kids more urgent. But I am also asking a question to other participants who may be more familiar with this subject. After looking at 2 RS above and others, I do have an impression that not doing such timely trials for kids was a blunder of enormous proportion, but it would be WP:SYN to summarize it this way on the page without more direct sourcing. So perhaps you or others know better sources and have a better knowledge/understanding of this? My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You can probably spell out exactly the conclusion you came to without using WP:SYNTH by stating in the same section how much COVID spreads in children and also saying how few children are vaccinated. Here's are some sources specifically about the spread of COVID among children: [9] [10] [11] [12].  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 01:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

88.8.63.78 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, change

"On August 10, a study showed that the full vaccination coverage rate is correlated inversely to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant mutation frequency in 16 countries (R-squared=0.878). Data strongly indicates that full vaccination against COVID-19 is critical to suppress emergent mutations.[68]"

to

"On August 10, a study showed that the full vaccination coverage rate is correlated inversely to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant mutation frequency in 16 countries (R-squared=0.878).[68]"

Reason: The paper is a preprint. In https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.08.21261768v1 there's an advice claiming "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." The statement "Data strongly indicates that full vaccination against COVID-19 is critical to suppress emergent mutations" must be deleted or this reference should be deleted as it is not peer-reviewed, so this article can be wrong. The underlying reason for this is explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation (Use of correlation as scientific evidence)

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 sourceif appropriate.Grayson Indica (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

Please update BBV154 as it has been approved for phase II/III trials by the drug regulator at COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_candidates_in_human_trials table.

References

2409:4061:49F:2EED:1894:22AF:2FD4:4420 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2021 (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. RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

ZyCoV-D has received authorization from Drugs Controller General of India.. Please update the following:

• (1) move from COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_candidates_in_human_trials → COVID-19_vaccine#List_of_authorized_and_approved_vaccines
• (2) new map request for COVID-19 DNA vaccine for ZyCoV-D.

References

42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging, @BD2412, FormalDude, Abrilando232, and Shawnqual: for help in updating. Thank you. 42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Abrilando232 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021 (2)

@Abrilando232: As per clinical trials data which is already used as a reference and latest tweet (https://twitter.com/CDSCO_INDIA_INF/status/1428744620838580235) from Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, please add → 3 doses, 4 weeks ← in the doses interval column and → 2–8 °C ← in storage temperature column for ZyCoV-D. 2409:4061:2E0C:3F5:D0A2:B5A:94BF:112F (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done Abrilando232 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"Fully vaccinated" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fully vaccinated. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Fully vaccinated until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE MAP

Someone needs to immediately update the approval map to reflect the United State's approval of the vaccine. aaronneallucas (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

please add

please add Soberana Plus among authorized vaccines SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Section 2.3 (Inactivated virus vaccines): Add the Iranian COVIran Barekat to authorized vaccines. Hosortyr (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Hosortyr (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Template for 'Vaccine candidates in human trials'

The table for 'Vaccine candidates in human trials' under the Trial and authorization status section has grown to a huge size and may grow even further. This table accounts for the largest byte count (byte size) on this article - a total of 144,398 bytes. See here: (it is in red due to being the largest size of the article)

A template for this table would be easier to manage, would not immensely increase the article size or interfere with article editing and linked here with a simple tag. Thoughts? Pinging, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 03:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• As creator of this article, I approve. BD2412 T 03:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds to me Okay. Abrilando232 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Works for me ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done Please head to Template:COVID-19 vaccine candidates to edit the table. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Shawnqual: The table may need to be moved off into another page; the page is still exceeding PEIS and some of the templates at the bottom are broken. This may be because of nested transclusions, which contribute to more PEIS consumption.
  ETA: It appears I was reading the wrong section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

In the Country column one shall add United States to Valneva vaccine and medign vaccine as well, because dynavax technologies an American company had collaborated with them.One can also see the Wiki of valneva and medigen vaccines more information is given over there.Also in the reference its given . 103.210.146.77 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2021 (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. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 14:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

China first doses

It's unfortunate that China is being left out of the graphs because it isn't reporting its first and second jabs regularly enough. In the info box on the China page there is a statistic from 25 June which says that 650 million have received the first dose (i.e. 46% of the population) at a point when the total number administered was about 1,141m, using the figures recorded on that page. That means only 1141-650=159m were awaiting a second dose, so of the 874m administered since, at least 874-159=715m have been newly administered. Even if we assume those have all received 2 doses, that means that 650+715/2=1007m or 72% have now received at least one dose.

In other words, it's safe to put China into the 70-80% range on the chart. Chris55 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Size limit

This article has been expanding for quite some time and has now exceeded the size limit. I thought removing the table of vaccine candidates and linking it as a template (which was done with consensus - check above) might solve the issue, but it did not.

Currently, the main section which accounts for the largest byte count (byte size) is another table - List of authorized and approved vaccines (74,422 bytes). Check here:

I propose creating a new template for this table and linking it here. The size will still be over the limit after this, to reduce it further, certain redundant information in various sections and references with similar information could be omitted. It might also be a good idea to create a new article for 'Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine', and adding an excerpt from there to this article. I believe the size will be ok after this and just a bit over the limit.

Thoughts/Opinions requested. Pinging, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Drbogdan.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Great idea, @Shawnqual, I'm tired of how long this article has become. ––FormalDude talk 22:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I had foreseen this as early as May 2020. But my suggestion and action of splitting the table into a template was met with some opposition by a single editor and no other editors gave any opinions/suggestions. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the best way to reduce the size, I think the template should help if the vaccine candidate was authorized may be added the entire article in the near future, it is good to me okay. Abrilando232 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the table to its separate template page and linked it here. The issue still needs to be resolved however. I think it would be best to split the Efficacy section into its own article. The information in this section is being regularly updated and that will likely be the case for a while, making the section expand further - it would hence stand better as a separate article with an excerpt linked here. If the templates are still broken, we can start to chip away at outdated information/references afterwards. Suggestions or other ideas are welcome. Pinging you guys, User:BD2412, User:FormalDude, User:Abrilando232, User:Tenryuu and User:Drbogdan. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 10:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I can ping with User:Ftrebien I think he can suggest the answer. Abrilando232 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with creating one or more templates for the efficacy tables. Efficacy and effectiveness are outcomes of clinical research, so the two are closely related. Maybe it would make sense to create an article titled COVID-19 vaccine clinical research, move both pieces of information there, and link to it from this article instead of including its content, which is quite extensive. This is pretty much what we do already with the list of authorizations. Then the size of this article will go down to 113k (from the current 221k) and the new article will have a size of 108k. The tables in the new article can still be put in templates to make editing easier. What do you think? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course of action. It'd take a while before the article returns to this size if it's being constantly updated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Normally, we would wait a while for the discussion to unfold, but there are citation errors at the end of the article. Perhaps we should continue with this solution and make adjustments later as needed. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Having just edited this article, support splitting ASAP. It's not good to have an article getting well over 11k views a day where the references are so difficult to access, and it's awfully slow to load too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Tenryuu and I were both doing the split at the same time :P I was trying to follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT closely, but I see that Tenryuu did some of the additional steps already. Hm. Should we merge COVID-19 vaccine efficacy into COVID-19 vaccine clinical research? Or create a separate article for the clinical trials? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think guess you're right, You can merge of efficacy into clinical research. xD Abrilando232 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with a merge of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy→COVID-19 vaccine clinical research. ––FormalDude talk 23:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Merged. Interestingly, with this accident one can see that, although the Effectiveness section is very large, it is the Trials section that contains a ton of references (448 vs 120) and was the main cause of cite errors in the source article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: The article still exceeds PEIS limits. The templates can't be transcluded on here, which is the issue. Perhaps a sidebar should be used, which is what was done when {{COVID-19 pandemic data}} got too large, to link to them as separate pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Interested editors (FormalDude—BD2412—Ftrebien—Shawnqual—Abrilando232), I've boldly gone and excerpted the §Efficacy section to a new page, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. It seems to have resolved the PEIS limit issue and templates at the bottom are showing again. What do you all think? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful. ––FormalDude talk 23:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That was perfect. It worked.👍 Abrilando232 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Split large sections into another article - follow up

Following from the discussion in Size limit. Work from WP:CORRECTSPLIT left to do:

• Add any background information about the parent subject that will be necessary for the reader to understand the subtopic.
• Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate).
• There may be some external links, bibliography items, etc. that can be removed from the source article as they are now in the new article.

Questions:

• As the new content from COVID-19 vaccine efficacy was merged into COVID-19 vaccine clinical research, should it be marked for deletion?
• Should COVID-19 vaccine clinical research be further split into other articles, for example, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and, perhaps, COVID-19 vaccine trials?

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, Let me ping each others, @BD2412, FormalDude, Tenryuu, Drbogdan, and Shawnqual:, Speak up. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. To the first of your two questions: I blanked and redirected COVID-19 vaccine efficacy to COVID-19 vaccine clinical research#Efficacy, since that is procedure for merges (in order to retain the page history). The second question is not something I think we need to do yet, at this point. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There will come a time when COVID-19 vaccine clinical research will get bloated and have to split or edited heavily to keep the size at a moderate level. The same issue of those trial and authorizations tables/templates will most likely occur there like it did here. We can table that discussion for when that time comes.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 10:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Error in various sections

Please fix the sections References, External links etc as all are showing links to default template. @BD2412, FormalDude, Abrilando232, Tenryuu, Drbogdan, Ftrebien, and Shawnqual: 2402:3A80:1A4E:9F7E:690B:788B:37A:E014 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We are discussing this in an earlier section on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This can only be solved by moving or removing content. As Tenryuu said, we are discussing this it the Size limit section above. It may take a while. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Abkhazia in list

Please Add my country Abkhazia in list of COVID-19 vaccine distribution by location, like you added Northern Cyprus. There were 976 vaacinated people in Abkhazia on 28 may. https://sputnik-abkhazia.ru/Abkhazia/20210528/1032513715/Minzdrav-Abkhazii-vaktsinatsiyu-ot-COVID-19-proshli-976-chelovek.html On 15 july 2021 almost 6500 people were vacinated.

Not the place to ask this specific edit.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Civil and liability claims for manufacturers

The article uses Reference 660 as a source for reporting that: "In the European Union, the COVID‑19 vaccines are licensed under a Conditional Marketing Authorisation which does not exempt manufacturers from civil and administrative liability claims"

But in the same reference I read:

"In the case of an Emergency Use Authorisation to temporarily authorise the distribution as an unauthorised product (Art. 5(2) of Directive 2001/83), EU legislation requires Member States to remove administrative and civil liability from the manufacturer and marketing authorisation holder, when this emergency use is recommended or required by the Member State."

I think the above should be mentioned, because mentioning only the first gives the false perception that vaccine manufacturers have administrative and civil liability in all cases.

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 08:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead section

Should the second paragraph in the lead section be moved or at least copied to the lead section of COVID-19 vaccine clinical research. I think it is better suited there and the lead of that article would become a bit more comprehensive. If it is copied, then the information will repeat in the Clinical research section of the article, as an excerpt from that article is being used. Thoughts? @Abrilando232, FormalDude, and Ftrebien: •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the following moves:

Second paragraph of the lede section of this article → COVID-19 vaccine clinical research

Second paragraph of the lede section of this article → COVID-19 vaccine#Clinical research

Provided these moves, I don't think there's a need to retain the second paragraph in the lede of this article. ––FormalDude talk 07:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:, Only one of those moves should be done or is necessary. Because, doing this: Second paragraph of the lead section of this article → COVID-19 vaccine clinical research would mean that the same information would automatically end up in COVID-19 vaccine#Clinical research as we are using an excerpt for this section from COVID-19 vaccine clinical research. It is like tow birds with one stone. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I meant to imply supports for the results of the move, but I made it confusing. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It could be move to the Second paragraph of the lede section of this article → COVID-19 vaccine clinical research, It's the best choice in a few reduce the size of this article. Abrilando232 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been moved to the clinical research from now, that works for me. :) Abrilando232 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some doctors oppose COVID-19 vaccines

Here are my sources:

• https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/covid-vaccine-media-marc-siegel
• https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
• Oh and let's add this: https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/three-fully-vaccinated-texas-house-democrats-test-positive-for-covid-19/

How come this article only focuses on the pro-COVID vaccines? It would be nice to have a balanced article that does not favor one side over the other, COVID skeptics have good arguments to being ignored. RepublicanJones1952 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The first article is about how to message vaccine hesitant populations. The second is about a debunked claim. The third is about breakthrough infections, which happen. WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:MEDRS are critical here. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A "balanced" article would indicate that doctors of all backgrounds overwhelmingly support vaccination. Moreover, it would not give much weight at all to doctors whose area of specialization was something outside of virology, pathology, or epidemiology. BD2412 T 02:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What text in the article do you think is wrong, and why? Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is wrong by what it omits not by what it includes. 2600:1002:B0DD:A781:1E2:B4BC:2B82:C958 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Adverse Effects 2 (aka. Side Effects, aka. Post-vaccine complications)

I second this person who asks about the removal of adverse effects, no mention of adverse effects in the official Wikipedia Covid19 vaccine article is just plain weird and makes hesitant people more mistrustful.

You can bring diff which removed the section? You can use extensions like HistoryHelper to quickly find and copy them. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The list of side effects needs to be updated as more info is made available.164.40.162.230 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

The lack of any reference in this article to side effects, adverse effects or clinical reported adverse events transforms this entire article into miss information. What could be and should be an informative and well written article instantly becomes propaganda because of the lack of balanced information presented. It should be noted that vaccine producers have been protected from liability from side effects and with governments funding advertising vaccine programs through public service announcements instead of regulated advertising producers further benefit from government funding of advertising and no regulatory requirements for fair balance. This environment creates a fear of information suppression campaigns that are not helpful. The public is entitled to complete and balanced information on these vaccines and I encourage the authors of this article to act in that spirit. Omission of information is fodder for fear mongers. 2600:1002:B0DD:A781:1E2:B4BC:2B82:C958 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Side Effect" section and the "Formulations" section were removed here without any discussion. I reverted that edit. In the interim, someone apparently saw that that type of info was missing from the article and added the section "Post-vaccination complications" which contains related content. Whoever added that section didn't leave an easy-to-find edit summary, so whoever you are, if there is anything in that section that isn't already in the "side effects" section that you think we need to keep, please include it in the "side effects" section. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about a related topic

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine --Light show (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

Society and culture ---> "the table to the right" ---> add a paranthesis after that: "(or down for mobile users)" Aequilaterum (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't know how a parenthesis or a line break would help there. It looks fine to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Effectiveness at reducing deaths

There seems to be a glaring omission in this article - it does not mention how effective the vaccines are at achieving their intended outcomes. In particular, do they reduce deaths from COVID-19, and by how much? For instance, there are press reports from the USA along the lines of "99% of fatalities are not vaccinated" and readers would like to have access to reliable information about questions like that. Is there some reason this has been left out, or is it just waiting for somebody to add it?--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Y Fixed with new section. --Light show (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the general overview is appropriate and useful here because it's certain that over time vaccines will evolve and it's better to describe their effectiveness in each their own article. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Data integrity issues"

I've removed the following text from this article:

“ On 2 November 2021, the peer-reviewed journal The BMJ reported "data integrity issues" in the activities of one company involved in the phase III evaluation trials of the Pfizer vaccine. ”

and moved it to the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article instead.

While concerning, this does not seem to invalidate the overall results of the trial, and still less does it influence the overall issue of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, and it shouldn't be given excess importance here. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The role of CD8+ Cells activity regarding vaccination policy making?

I am a medical doctor from Panama. I don't get why nobody mention the role of CD8+ in the antigen presentation of RNAm vaccines! The memory is stored in such cells. I don't get the meaning of "deteriorate" or "wane" when The WHO speaker talk using such terms in this fragment . Why nobody mention anything about them? where they are in the policy making? why are using antibody to tailor booster doses? Hedleypanama (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know the answer to your questions, but do you have a specific suggestion for how the article should change, with a reliable source to support it? Please note that the talk page should not be used as a general forum for discussing the topic, only for discussing changes to the page (see WP:NOTAFORUM). Also note that I have moved this section to the bottom of the talk page, where new sections should generally be placed. Cheers, Danstronger (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC) (@Hedleypanama: I forgot to ping you in my response. Danstronger (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC))

Now that I think about I suggest dividing the vaccine types, for this webpage, according how the antigens are presented to the immune system: via MHC I or MHC II. Virus, intracelullar microbes are presented via TAP-MHC I which directly activates CD8+. Extracellular microbes and microbe fragments activates MHC II expressed in a professional antigen presenting cell (APC), such as granulocytes. As I understand, the big fuss of using RNAm vaccine is to present via MHC I with less dosage than a vector.

Vaccines presenting via MHC I are:

- Any kind of vector

- RNAm

- DNA plasmid

- Nasal vaccines ?

Vaccines presenting via MHC II are:

- Inactivated virus vaccines

- Virus-like particles

- Subunit-based

At least someone has to mention this issue! What do you think @Danstronger:?

Hedleypanama (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hedleypanama: Well, I'm really not an expert on vaccines, but I think the current categorization is based on how news sources tend to categorize or describe the vaccines. I've seen news articles describe Pfizer as an mRNA vaccine, but I haven't heard anyone talking about MHCs. The more technical details that you're describing are more appropriate for the more specific articles; for example I see MHCs mentioned at MRNA_vaccine#Mechanism. Danstronger (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

News sources don't feel the need to describe how vaccines are related! Journalists are not trained in immunology and they DON'T ask such questions. I agree that this information should be mentioned in EACH vaccine mechanism even if they are not against COVID19.

The main point of MCH I vaccines, is that they LACK the target proteins or fragments, but they have the instructions of how to build them! This information is executed inside a non-professional cells that are killed by CD8+ cells. Most CD8+ cells after vaccination die, but the survivors become CD8+ memory cells. It is true that AFTER CD8+ attack fragments of the cell can be presented via MHC II (after clean-up of professional antigen presentation cells -APC-), but that's not the point. These events similar to the happenings of the actual infection with the wild virus.

The MHC II vaccines DO have the target proteins or fragments. Such proteins or fragments are ingested by professional APCs and presented via MHC II. MHC I antigen presentation DOESN'T happen with this class of vaccines, because the targets are not synthesized inside any cell of the person who got the vaccine. The immune system arm addressing intracellular targets is NOT activated at all in this class of vaccine, and you know, virus reproduce INSIDE the cells!

There are some consequences of this classification:

- Chile was the first Latin American country to achieve a large number of cases followed by a huge tsunami of cases! Chile mainly used MCH II vaccines (Sinovac).

- Antibodies are NOT SO IMPORTANT! CD8+ have the star role of the immune response!

- This classification helps the reader to understand how the immune system works and the role of vaccines in its grind and gears clockwork.

Most sources overestimate of antibodies while "forgetting" the role of T-cells. For example, a BBC journalist got "surprised" after learning that T-Cells have a role in immunity, a news explainer from Nature tell about a "controversy" on how immune system work regarding the role of T-Cells. A recent paper, from The Lancet give a small insight of how vaccines actually work: the problem with the paper is that it DOESN'T explore MHC II vaccines might work.

Dear @Danstronger, if you don't know about this, you can further read and consult with someone who knows about this issue.

Hedleypanama (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@Hedleypanama: Ok, but if you want wikipedia to say, for example, that Sinovac is not effective because it is an MHC II vaccine, you need reliable references saying exactly that. There are many policies about this, but the core one is WP:VERIFIABILITY (see also WP:WEIGHT). If you know things that no reliable sources are saying, there is nothing we can do about that. In any case, the efficacy of Sinovac is discussed at CoronaVac, and the mechanism by which it works is discussed at Inactivated_vaccine#Mechanism, which definitely looks like it could use some more information! I encourage you to add details there, in a neutral and reliably sourced way. Danstronger (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me quote the wikipage page you cite: "Because inactivated viruses tend to produce a weaker response by the immune system than live viruses, immunologic adjuvants and multiple "booster" injections may be required in some vaccines to provide an effective immune response against the pathogen.".

I am not saying is related to COVID19, it something related to ALL virus infections. The "weak response" is caused by the lack of TAP/MHC I antigen presentation, which is present in RNAm, wild infections, live attenuated virus and vectors where the cell is obliged to synthesize the antigens. In virus, MHC II vaccines are quite good as far as we talk about arbovirus, those with a key target and very small virus such as Hepatitis B virus: such virus cannot mutate because it can be deleterious for the virus. This is NOT the case for COVID19, HIV or common cold virus. The difference between COVID19 and HIV, for example, is a vaccine was developed in less time! The point of RNAm is to avoid the "middle man" of the vector or a virus to induce TAP/MHC I with a lower amount. Baterial vaccines are another story, since most of them use to infect outside the cells.

Wikipedia pages shows that vaccines that have exclusive MHC II antigen presentation tend to have lower efficacy than those with the TAP/MCH I antigen presentation. I think it could be useful to have a new page comparing the efficacy of COVID19 vaccines for verifying my statements. Although, I admit that is not so easy to do so, because the number needed for vaccinate should also be needed for that: perhaps it could be an idea for a large paper!

In addition, the immune system only has two means to learn about the pathogens: the TWO antigen presentations, despite the multiple COVID19 vaccine mechanisms that exist! <- That's the point I want to make and how the vaccines are related among them! Hedleypanama (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

In the "Inactivated virus vaccines" section, there is no link to the appropriate wikipedia page for the Kazakhstani vaccine "QazVac". I was going to add the link. The page is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QazCovid-in 125.239.190.189 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already wikilinked earlier in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Efficacy [protection] waning over time

It's important to add a very important section that is up to date and carefully studied. The topic of immunization decline

For instance, study 1:

″A significant trend of declining S-antibody levels was seen with time for both ChAdOx1 (p<0·001) and BNT162b2 (p<0·001; figure; appendix), with levels reducing by about five-fold for ChAdOx1, and by about two-fold for BNT162b2, between 21–41 days and 70 days or more after the second dose.″

Link> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01642-1/fulltext

Study 2:

″Two new large, real-world studies yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) show waning Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine protection, one finding dramatically lower protection against infection—but not hospitalization or death—5 to 7 months after the second dose in Qatar, and the other detailing reduced immune response over 6 months in Israel.″

Links: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/protection-immune-response-fall-after-pfizer-covid-vaccine-data-show https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114583?query=featured_home

Study 3: November 2021

″By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period. And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months."″

Links: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows-dramatic-decline-in-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines https://science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 1ozieje (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Kids, toddler and teen efficacy/risk-benefit ratio

This is an ongoing situation. The studies are being published and evaluated, peer-reviewed as we speak, being discussed by health authorities and scientists.

In near future we would have to create a section for the efficacy and risk-benefit ratio for kids, toddlers and teens.

One Pfizer trial to consider (bear in mind there's conflict of interest though)

This is a developing situation being reviewed and analyzed and will continue so for the next months 

The World Health Organization page on Coronavirus-19 has been updated on November 15, 2021. They mention age as 12 and above. As of November 15 they concluded only Pfizer/Biontech suitable for kids 12 and above

Kids below 5: Fauci told that it needs trial

It looks to me there's a big Pfizer/Moderna lobby to approve fast. If this is good or bad only future data will show, as more trials are needed as of right now.

Osobozoru (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References

14 year old has life-threatening reaction after receiving injection. - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Student was drooling, and had an altered state. Speech was mumbled, student was able to smile and it was equal. Student's heart rate was in the 50s, Sp02 98-99% , EMS/911 was called, student transported to hospital after monitor showed 3rd degree heartblock. EMS took student to hospital where a code stroke was called. student had a CT and an MRI, student then was taken to surgery to remove clot from brain. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:7D60:8B5A:F053:8B85 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The link didn't take me to the page where the quote was sourced from. I assume you think this information should be added to the page, please in the future note what actions you think should be taken. Note that the website linked states that "The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events". This information is UNDUE and UNRELIABLE. Additonally, "Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies, and excessive examples should be avoided.". For these reasons this information does not belong on this page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

To significantly improve clarity for a generally lay audience, I would suggest changing the last sentence of the background section from "On 10 August 2021, a study showed that the full vaccination coverage rate is correlated inversely to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant mutation frequency in 16 countries (R-squared=0.878)" to:

"Recent research in 16 countries suggests that higher vaccination rates are correlated with lower SARS-CoV-2 delta mutation rates" (and keep the same reference, which I think is a proper one). 173.70.211.138 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The aforementioned content was completely removed by another editor. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Change "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom"

The sentence starting "Great Britain formed a COVID‑19 vaccine task force in April 2020 to stimulate local efforts for accelerated development ... " is incorrect. It was the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Government that created a vaccine task force, with funding open to all four countries of the United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Great Britain only refers to England, Scotland, and Wales. Piers39293 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Mix and Match page potentially misleading

mix and match page could be potentially misleading depending on the user's location. Further elaboration could help. 2601:1C2:F00:940:402A:4ECA:BD:E0C5 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible reference: "Six Up-and-Coming COVID-19 Vaccines" in GEN

Philippidis, Alex (2021-11-01). "Six Up-and-Coming COVID-19 Vaccines". GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. Retrieved 2021-12-23. This article from GEN might be a useful reference. While "up-and-coming" is sometimes interpreted as "not notable", notability has already been established for most of the vaccines mentioned in the GEN article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Myocarditis in young healthy men

There is no information about this adverse event in this article and yet there should be. Here is a piece by experts arguing for nuance with young men under 30 and the mRNA vaccines. https://time.com/6131104/rethinking-covid-19-restrictions-2022/ And here's a study: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665

• Proposal: add "There is an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in young men under the age of 30 after receiving an mRNA vaccine, which led some experts to call for nuanced vaccine mandates for this population."2600:1012:B06B:1ACB:1C49:B37E:FD7E:5374 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The bmj source seems more likely to fit the WP:RSMED criteria, not sure about peer revieweed status. It seems to be mostly about Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna. The articles for specific vaccines currently mention myocarditis, using older and not necessarly better sources: Reuters, CDC, Directorate of Health of Iceland, WHO (Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#Myocarditis, Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine#Adverse_effects). There is also something at Vaccine_adverse_event#Israel, which seems out of scope for such a general article. If the bmj source is indeed more up to date, relevant and reliable, I guess those articles should be updated and that some mention here wouldn't hurt anyway, but I'm leaving this to someone more familiar with medical sources. 176.247.164.67 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I just deleted the section at Vaccine_adverse_event#Israel, the source used was [13]. This article currently also uses for the fact that "serious adverse events associated with receipt of new vaccines targeting COVID‑19 are of high interest to the public", which hopefully doesn't require sourcing, seems still a usefull source (June 29, 2021) about eventual details about myocarditis. 176.247.164.67 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Laboratory wars

I think it can be useful to the reader having a section or another page which might discuss what we are witnessing for the past 6 months (or so) war between pharmaceutical companies. The COVID-19 Vaccination program is directly tied to an increase in profit, naturally, when European Health Agency and or FDA approve or not a vaccine candidate.

As an example of recent days, the press worldwide did not mention in the headline a non peer-reviewed study as a non-peer and didn't include the possible conflict of interest which in this case is enough to be worth of note, because most people don't read studies. This is an alarming conflict of interest with some strange resulting in language tricks, marketing-tied wording.

This example is interesting due to the fact of multiple conflicts in the same area. The sponsor of this study has shares in pharmaceutical companies (stock market), furthermore the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has close ties to Pfizer, both in pre-COVID19 vaccine and post-COVID-19 vaccine. They also have conflict of interest inside a conflict of interest with other companies directly tied to development of COVID-19 vaccines: "The Veesler laboratory has received a sponsored research agreement from Vir Biotechnology Inc. HYC reported consulting with Ellume, Pfizer, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Merck. She has received research funding from Emergent Ventures, Gates Ventures, Sanofi Pasteur, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and support and reagents from Ellume and Cepheid outside of the submitted work" https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.12.472269v1

The issue is not limited to profit. I'm addressing the issue of a conflict of interest and media manipulation or sensational headlines, both of said issues which are more or less starting to be discussed slowly.

WeEJsT (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Chart needed to show trends in deaths for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated

This article needs a chart showing the relative proportion of deaths over time in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. BD2412 T 01:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, you are either fully vaccinated or considered unvaccinated. The info in this article that states "unvaccinated" should also include "partially vaccinated". According to the chart in the link, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated are the same thing. 66.68.178.180 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would think completely unvaccinated versus vaccinated-at-all, if those statistics are available. BD2412 T 19:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That's is the problem I am finding, there is no information about who the "unvaccinated" are, all of the government information states either fully vaccinated or unvaccinated. This is concerning, why are they being so vague about this? The article that I posted has a sentence that says vaccinated and fully vaccinated in a way that seems to indicate they are interchangeable. I.E. both are people that had both vaccinations and are past the 14 day period after the 2nd shot.66.68.178.180 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against infection in the UK between unvaccinated,and 2 doses with the 14 days wait time

Numbers of those who test positive for COVID-19 12 Aug-12 Sept: Unvaccinated 263,285, and 2 doses past 14 days 289,279 13 Sept - 10 Oct: Unvaccinated 371,696, 2 doses past 14 days 288,181 11 Oct - 7 Nov: Unvaccinated 378,083, 2 doses past 14 days 460992 Very interesting that the unvaccinated is lower than the fully vaccinated. </ref>66.68.178.180 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

References

|}

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jebrice.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning of reduction of spread?

Shouldn't this page include information on how the vaccine effect the risk for transmission? Mrconter1 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I came here looking for data on the effect of vaccines in transmission and the article has nothing. COVID-19_vaccine_clinical_research#Critical_coverage has though:

In July 2021, several experts expressed concern that achieving herd immunity may not currently be possible because the Delta variant is transmitted among those immunized with current vaccines.[630] The CDC published data showing that vaccinated people could transmit the Delta variant, something officials believed was not possible with other variants.[631]

--Error (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree: I keep seeing misinformation going around lately saying that the covid vaccines only affect symptoms and don't prevent infection (that is wrong btw: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7013e3-H.pdf)

I think it would be nice if we could have a somewhat up to date summary of what the vaccines are known to do, in a breakdown something like they mention here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94719-y

vaccine efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility (VEsusc).

vaccine efficacy on decreasing the infectiousness of individuals who become infected (VEinf).

vaccine efficacy on symptoms after infection (VEsymp)

vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 disease (VEdis). -- DKEdwards (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg reports that the EU is warning that repeat boosters weaken the immune system

Should this be in the article???? 66.68.178.180 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

European Union regulators warned that repeat boosters could weaken the immune system. For more controversial statements, WP:MEDASSESS states that we should rely on high level evidence. Likely the threshold would be randomized controlled trial which the citation does not reach. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Precautionary principle

Would someone please check this edit at Precautionary principle. That changed "early reports about rare blood clots seen in 25 patients out of 20 million vaccinated [by AZ]" to "...1 patient per 5,000". Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Defining Effectiveness

I propose to restructure the Effectiveness section and merge the Duration of immunity section with its Effectiveness against transmission subsection, alongside a new Prevention of disease severity subsection. A growing number of scientists are concerned that patients are sold on the vaccine effectiveness as protection against transmission, when it best offers protection against severe disease and hospitalization. [14] Pious Brother (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of countries by approval status

I notice the map is nowadays mostly green.

This map: File:COVID-19 vaccine map.svg

I feel it would be worthwhile to showcase the gradual transformation from a yellow/grey map, that is, to graphically illustrate the 2019-2022 history and progress of approval status (probably as its own article). CapnZapp (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Micromorts - comparison infection fatality rate and adverse effect

Wouldn't it be good to include following section Micromort#Other in the article? --PJ Geest (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please use review articles

I have just re-written COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events to use stronger, more up-to-date sources. The three steps were:

• Find a review article or two in decent journals (biggest challenge: finding reviews that weren't hyperspecific, like "this one vaccine in this sub-type of cancer patients").
• Read what was already there.
• Replace most of it, because the accumulated contents were either random details that made a splash in the media one week, or based on outdated information, or otherwise not suitable for a general overview.

I want to emphasize that I did find reading the section to be helpful, even though I ultimately replaced most of the contents and sources. It was helpful because it gave me some ideas about structure (common problems first, uncommon next, then rare-but-serious, followed by unknowns and alternatives). What I wrote was probably still too detailed, especially about menstrual cycles, but I'm satisfied that I have provided encyclopedic context.

At this stage in the pandemic, I think we should be able to make this kind of change for most sections in the article. We need to be thinking about finding those narrative and systematic reviews and using them to replace as many existing sources as possible. This article shouldn't have 300 sources, of which 87% are used only once. IMO it should have something closer to 100 sources, 50% of which are used at least twice, and five of which are used 10 times or more.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Adverse effects section - 1st paragraph

We currently say "For most people, the side effects, also called adverse effects, from COVID-19 vaccines are mild and can be managed at home.". This is a correct but uninformative intro to the section. For example, a vaccine with 49% of serious adverse effects could have the same opening sentence, and readers without aprropiate background would overstate the vaccine safety. A needed companion to this sentence is a reference to the general risk-benefit profile of the vaccines, given the EUA context, and the risk of similar vaccines. Forich (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

49% of serious adverse effects could have the same opening sentence ← I don't think so, as that would be highly misleading; there is a question of idiom here. Maybe replace "most" with "nearly all"? Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. We're using 'most' because it isn't close at all. I could see 'nearly all' being more likely to prompt complaints about the precise threshold, though that's not necessarily a reason not to use it. Per the current wording that up to 20% of people report a disruptive level of side effects is our most common set of side effects (and mostly still fitting the definition of "mild and can be managed at home"), and the serious side effects are evaluated around 1 in 100,000 to 1 in a million, that fits with "nearly all".

The last sentence of the section references comparative risk of neurological effects, perhaps we can expand with more sources making that comparison and elevate its prominence. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So, we can agree that: i) its useful to disntiguish between mild AE using wording such as "most people don´t have them" + serious AE using this wording "nearly all vaccinated persons avoids getting them". ii) give a little more prominence to establishing a brief comparative of the overall risk level of the vaccine in context (such as the information Bakkster cites we currently use in the last paragraphs). How do the best sources introduce the overall risk of the covid vaccines? I'm sure there is already a nicely written intro out there. Forich (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree, and like your suggestion to distinguish mild/moderate side effects from serious adverse effects to be more clear. I'm a bit less optimistic that it's as easy as having an obvious best source to be clearly distilled without pushback/complaint from someone (there's a reason for the sanctions on all things COVID), but I'm in favor of trying. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)