Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 vaccine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page . General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance. Refrain from using April 2020 ) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Pharmacology Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Emergency / Pulmonology Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Viruses Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 vaccine (41 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 13,528 13,528 Background 13,066 13,066 Vaccine technologies 6,999 41,293 mRNA vaccines 7,865 7,865 Adenovirus vector vaccines 7,159 7,159 Inactivated virus vaccines 5,646 5,646 Subunit vaccines 6,869 6,869 Virus-like particle vaccines 640 640 Other types 6,115 6,115 List of authorized vaccines 4,780 4,780 Delivery methods 188 6,292 Intranasal 4,284 4,284 Autologous 1,820 1,820 Universal vaccine 3,705 3,705 Formulation 1,769 1,769 Planning and development 1,594 21,667 Challenges 10,513 10,513 Organizations 9,560 9,560 Clinical research 139 337 Post-vaccination complications 198 198 History 866 866 Effectiveness 896 11,761 Duration of immunity 4,707 8,884 Immune evasion by variants 4,042 4,177 Vaccine adjustments 135 135 Effectiveness against transmission 961 961 Mix and match 1,020 1,020 Adverse events 18,443 18,443 Society and culture 26 52,166 Distribution 1,647 1,647 Access 35,996 39,720 Economics 3,724 3,724 Liability 8,313 8,313 Controversy 1,387 1,387 Misinformation and hesitancy 1,073 1,073 See also 249 249 Notes 36 36 References 33 33 Further reading 1,952 4,194 Vaccine protocols 2,242 2,242 External links 2,088 2,088 Total 196,273 196,273

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Page notices, consensus, and readership

Text and/or other creative content from this version of COVID-19 vaccine was copied or moved into COVID-19 vaccine clinical research with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: No consensus, 11 March 2020, from COVID-19 vaccine to Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research, see discussion . No consensus, 13 April 2020, from COVID-19 vaccine to COVID-19 vaccine development, see discussion .

"In April 2021, Astrazeneca and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) updated their information for healthcare professionals about AZD1222."

Given this, could the article expand on what was meant by "causal relationship" between the vaccination and the occurrence of thrombosis? For even if the adverse reactions where said to be "very rare", by how much had they "exceeded what would be expected in the general population"? Also, could the EMA Statement be updated to include their last advice on vaccination and any risk of thrombosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.237 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMA stated in writing, as do the manufacturers, that the vaccines do not, and were never intended to, stop or reduce transmission. The article should be edited to be truthful 85.94.248.27 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly discovered this posted by a relative who doesn't like the vaccine, but it is concerning.[1] Doug Weller talk 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junk, non-peer-reviewed journal and a rogues' gallery of contributors. Some sane commentary on it here.[2] Bon courage (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My browser showed me this[3]. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published by Cureus, a definite red flag. @Bon courage seeing this [4] RSN? Doug Weller talk 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI journals already listed at

WP:RSP. Myself, I would probably never use this journal for health claims. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

How is that MDPI? Anyway, going to RSN now. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, it's not MDPI. It's Springer Nature (?!). Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same people, same argument, different publisher.[5] Doug Weller talk 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to cap this off: Cureus (unusually) retracted the article.[6] Bon courage (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised that a reasonably seasoned editor would have fallen for this bogus report in the first place. BD2412 T 16:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the end of the section "Adverse Events", after the part with tinnitus, the following references could be added, showing no signs of an increased rate of lasting vestibular damage:

https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15546 https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000003275

It could read like this: "Compared to pre-pandemic cohorts, no increased rate of lasting peripheral-vestibular damage has been shown in observational studies [ref 1, 2]." J.Q.G. (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Would need secondary sourcing per

WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]