Talk:COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 3

One more vaccine is being developed and tested in Hong Kong and Mainland China, according to the news. It is a collaboration between the University of Hong Kong, Xiamen University and Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy. Sources:

• "China's nasal spray coronavirus vaccine set for clinical trials". Global Times. 2020-09-10.
• "Dual flu-covid nasal spray vaccine to start trial in Hong Kong". Bangkok Post. 2020-10-09.
• "Inhaled vaccines under development in Hong Kong aim to fight coronavirus at its point of attack". SCMP. 2020-10-12.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuha (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the first sentence of the introduction be "A COVID‑19 vaccine is a vaccine intended to provide acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID‑19"? The confusion between the virus and the disease is already widespread among the public. Perhaps WP should be extra-precise. This is even more important since some of the symptoms reported after vaccination by the Pfizer/BioNTech virus are COVID-like, including high fever, loss of smell, etc. The cause is unknown (perhaps due to a cytokine storm triggered by the vaccine, similar to the one killing allergic patients). This issue will become more acute with the vaccine based on attenuated viruses, that have been shown to revert in other diseases (very rare event, but still). 82.10.153.52 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, in the past several weeks, as part of the ongoing partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation,WHO has shared infographics explaining the vaccines on Commons. They might be useful for the information being developed for this article. If you need additional graphics, media or reports from WHO, they may be able to release them: you can make additional requests of their team at commons:Commons:World_Health_Organization. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Janssen vaccine was not developed by

Hello, I tried to add a section with info about a death after receiving the vaccin but it got removed. There's tons of people dying from the vaccin. 1, 2, 3. And I only Googled that for 2 minutes. There's probably more. How is this not relevant info? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for stating or implying anything medical. And it does not say he died "from the vaccine" in any case.

talk

) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there's a draft article on

I do not immediately see the answers in this article. What are the potential strategies for speeding up the vaccination process? What's the benefit of giving twice as many people one shot, versus two? What's the benefit of using a half dose of Moderna to double the supply of that vaccine? What other strategies might exist and who is considering them? Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe Providence Therapeutics out of Canada has begun human trials, but not knowing the page very well I'd rather make an edit request. I believe they would be in Phase I human trials if I'm not mistaken. Here are some sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we please keep the layperson-accessible description of the vaccine types above the table, which is effectively a wall of jargon that's too technical for laypeople to understand without explanation? The table is important, but especially since this article is linked from the Main Page, most people reading this article are going to need the technical aspects explained out in prose. We need to keep that explanation as close to the top of the article as possible. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In the sentence: "A South African variant (501.V2) has also emerged, which is believed to be more contagious and cause much more serious illness for most people who become infected." - the corresponding reference doesn't appear to confirm this at all. In fact, it says the exact opposite. To quote from the article directly, it says "There is no evidence that new variant causes much more serious illness for the vast majority of people who become infected."

Either the sentence or the citation need changing. -- Fursday 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I changed the sentence, removing the part without support.

Richard-of-Earth (talk

) 05:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• /October 2020/ 30 people in St.Petersburg aged 18-45 in addition to earlier commenced trials in Novosibirsk (number of people is not mentioned in the article, other sources state Novosibirsk trials started on October 8, as center is located in Moscow there should have been at least some trials in Moscow too) (https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-chumakov-center-covid-19/)
• Phase I was finished already by end October, phase II also included site at Kirov (https://gmpnews.net/2020/10/the-chumakov-center-may-start-producing-the-third-russian-covid-19-vaccine-in-early-2021/)

• /November 2020/ News article on Russian says that until December 2020 there would be trials involving 300 people as Phase I/II, and then 3000 people as first stage of Phase III (https://www.interfax.ru/russia/738613)

Some more infromation from Russian officials (press conference on January 18, 2021): The CoviVac vaccine is an inactive, whole-virion, purified concentrated vaccine that is being injected twice with an interval of 14 days. It is transported and stored at a temperature of plus 2 to plus 8 degrees Celsius. Clinical research has proven that the vaccine is absolutely safe and has low reactogenisity. The majority of the vaccinated volunteers formed stable immunity on the 28th day of their first jab.

The Chumakov Centre is expected to present to the Health Ministry a package of documents required to start the registration of the vaccine. The earliest time for its registration is February 16, 2021. At present, the Centre is working on the vaccine for the further release control that will be carried out under the law afterthe vaccine receives its registration certificate. (http://government.ru/en/news/41342/)

Start of vaccine administration is expected in March (https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/70971/)

One more source (27.01.2021) states that Chumakov Center plans to send infromation about vaccine to WHO

So far all I could find.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarscat (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be added. Source: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-rolling-review-novavaxs-covid-19-vaccine-nvx-cov2373 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.200.196 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add Bangladesh to " EUA (or equivalent) granted, mass vaccination underway" in the map. Reference: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-launches-mass-vaccinations-amid-challenges/2124889 Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Latest monitoring data confirms safety of COVID-19 vaccines https://www.gov.uk/government/news/latest-monitoring-data-confirms-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B036:38B5:5495:C89E:19B5:66F3 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Approval status seems a bit out of date. The Swedish wikipedia contains - for Sputnik V - info on EUA approvals for Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, Palestina, Paraguay, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Hungery, Venezuela and Belarus with references. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V#Godk%C3%A4nnandestatus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pszmulik (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Both Novavax and Jenssen have been updated with enough approvals, they should be moved up to the approved vaccines table — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnviableOne (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As of this moment these vaccines have only been submitted for approval, but not formally approved.It is better to move vaccines to the approved section when at least one country makes a formal announcement. So far that is not the case with Novavax and Jenssen while most probably some if not all of the existing submissions for approval will be successful.Yarscat (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This article really needs to be split. The main information that this article should center is what the vaccines are, how they work, and where they are in the approval process. However, all the information about development and deployment of vaccines in general is crowding out information about the actual vaccines themselves. Readers have to get through a wall of text about what the WHO was doing last summer in order to get to the table of the actual vaccines, which has minimal information about each vaccine in a format that's hard for non-specialists to parse.

I propose splitting content into two new articles.

I feel that COVID-19 vaccine is a good "head article" from which the individual vaccine articles can be accessed. I am not sure that we should therefore be splitting or expanding the prose in COVID-19 vaccine "head article", and would expect that over time, as the individual vaccine articles get developed, the head article will probably get reduced in size? Britishfinance (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why "Development" and "Vaccines development status" are separate sections? I think it should be fine to merge the two sections together and rearrange/rewrite the section so that the table is one of the first elements of the section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The second section was just renamed from 'Vaccines'. I've reverted the edit. I think we can keep the distinct as the first focuses on development, the second focuses on individual vaccines and their efficacy. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The topic currently includes a lot of content that is not well maintained and redundant. There are a lot of opportunities to cut excessive detail. There are other sections that can be reduced or consolidated. I think you're right that there may be an opportunity here to split out one of the larger sections but hoping that we can first tackle the content quality and maintenance issues.

• COVID-19 vaccine § Planning and investment includes 12 paragraphs that are transcluded from Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. We could substantially reduce the transclusion.
• COVID-19 vaccine § Equitable access can be edited down.
• COVID-19 vaccine § Compressed timelines can probably be merged into other subheadings.
• COVID-19 vaccine § National governments really needs a more up to date description of Operation Warp Speed.

- Wikmoz (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:TNT

entire sections, which I don't think we should do. And I've found that splitting long articles actually makes them easier to improve and maintain, since the shorter articles are easier to work with.

@Britishfinance: Most of the information in this article is about the vaccine development and deployment process in general. Individual vaccine articles wouldn't contain the same information, so it wouldn't be expected that the information would migrate out of this article over time.

@Tenryuu: I agree the table should be placed earlier in the article, but we do need separate sections for "what the vaccines are" and "who funded the development and when". I'd also like to get away from a timeline/proseline format, and towards a format broken down by mechanism. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done some reorganization and cut down some extraneous material, and there aren't any obvious large cuts left to make. Any further comment on the proposed split? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), would it be too adventurous to suggest a "bigger" split that takes the Development, Trials, and Deployment sections? I'm not sure if they'd fit together into a larger article, like "Logistics" or some umbrella term. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be something like 70–80% of the prose in this article, so it wouldn't be too useful as a split. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits yesterday! I favored keeping this as a single topic but I can understand the breakout of

COVID-19 vaccine deployment as there's no overlapping content. However, splitting off development seems unecessary and makes the subject trickier to navigate. I'd generally favor restoring that content to this topic. - Wikmoz (talk

) 08:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The main intent of the split was that this article should have a detailed description of the current situation, while the "Development" article has the history of what things happened when. A lot of the material in the "Development" article is about things that happened last summer, and there's a lot of

proseline there. These really do belong in a subarticle because they remain of historical interest, but they're not what most readers will be looking for when they come to this article. That being said, I think some of the material could migrate back to this article if it's updated and rewritten to have a broader scope than a collection of what happened on some specific date. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk

) 02:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I've copied most of the text that was non-historical in nature back into this article, and renamed the other article to History of COVID-19 vaccine development. Hopefully that will encourage descriptive rather than historical content to be added to this article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): This may work but I wonder if the distinction will be clear to readers and editors. Separating descriptive text from historical examples that provide background or context is tough, especially for something this recent (and ongoing). Right now, the history topic includes events through the current day while the current development section includes events dating back to the start of the pandemic. I'd weakly favor merging. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Licensure section

The COVID-19 vaccine § Licensure section contains a level of background information on vaccine licensure that may be beyond what is necessary in this topic. Any thoughts on moving a portion of this section into a new section within Vaccine? We could then include a 'Further reading' link to that section. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather than trimming it, I'd like to see the section expanded. There's considerable misunderstanding among editors about 1) interim results from an ongoing multiyear Phase III trial being a conclusion of and end to the trial (which will continue for years - for all the vaccines with preliminary evidence of safety and efficacy), and 2)

emergency use authorization being a final step equal to vaccine approval and licensure (EUA is an interim, temporary marketing status). The COVID-19 vaccine article is a template for the whole vaccine process, which has a logical endpoint with licensure. To be encyclopedic for the article, we need more attention to this section, not less. Zefr (talk

) 23:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this concern can still be addressed by two or three succinct sentences explaining licensure and how it differs from an EUA. The non-COVID-19 content could still be moveed to a new section, Vaccine § Licensure. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic, work to develop a vaccine against coronavirus diseases like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) established knowledge about the structure and function of coronaviruses; this knowledge enabled accelerated development of various vaccine technologies during early 2020."

Although fascinating is this piece of information important enough to be put in the top of the page? Especially for a topic so important and of such interest to general readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieChunsfather (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The completed phase 3 trials had, from memory, 48,000 participants. The 30,000 referred to seems to be the late-stage US study, running from August 2020 to March 2021.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

Current few lines on

SARS-CoV-2 variant

fail to capture how the picture has changed since mid-December.

oxford AstraZeneca was large scale tested in Brasil and South Africa - and then the new variant appeared - highly unlikely it's just co-incidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.68.230 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone change EUA pending for South Africa to approved mass vaccination planned, due to its 1st one million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine being delivered TapticInfo (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"WIBP from Sinopharm" is listed in the lead as an authorized vaccine, but it does not seem to be listed in the table or elsewhere in the article body. Does anyone have more information on this? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please remove picture with percents of vaccinated population form the lead. It's extremely outdated. 109.92.52.241 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done updated with new one -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Would the map showing the percentages of people vaccinated benefit from moving towards using colour coding solely to illustrate the information? The exact details can be accessed on WikiCommons and the map looks rather cluttered at the moment. The flip side to this is that the map would look rather sparse currently but just thinking longer term

Also, this map from The Economist showing when countries will likely start full scale vaccination programmes may well be a good inclusion to the article. Here’s the link (it may be behind a paywall) https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/01/28/vaccine-nationalism-means-that-poor-countries-will-be-left-behind MaStabbo (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support replacing the current visuals. OWID has great SVG visuals that are CC licensed. Their map of percentage of population fully vaccinated would be great. Timeshifter previously proposed using a graphic from Our World in Data (in this thread) but we weren't sure who would handle the regular updates. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It only takes a few seconds to upload a new version of this map below. Don't be shy. Anybody can do it. Click the download link at the Our World in Data page for the map. Download to your PC desktop, etc.. Then near the bottom of the Commons page for the map click "Upload a new version of this file". Browse to the image file on your PC. Click "Upload file". Since this is a new version of an existing file on the Commons you don't have to enter any text before clicking "Upload file". Once uploaded click Ctrl-F5 if you are using the Firefox browser. This will clear all caches of the map on your PC and pull up the new version. Here is the latest version:

• File:World map of COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people by country or territory.png

By the way, the above map is the PNG version. It looks better than the SVG version. There is a bug in the Wikimedia software or at OWID that makes the text and logo on the top line overlap. It looks weird, and covers the date. The date is very important. OWID knows of the problem. Go to the SVG version on the Commons to see the problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Just followed your guide thanks Timeshifter! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gtoffoletto. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi,

I would like to add the following content to the Wikipedia page related to covid-19 vaccines under the section "Efficacy".

According to the NY Times [1] most of the vaccines that have been approved up to now (from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Astrazeneca, J&J) protect against hospitalization and death for most of the Covid19 variants that have been discovered up to now.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/world/africa/covid-vaccine-astrazeneca-south-africa.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR0qQRI22H_WkbDEUx1IHV9Szg8H_CNU-FQpGTrMwYOYO_-uG487ntZkU5Q

Thanks!

Cheers, Mauro Smartasso (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There's already a section in the article that outlines that in more detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest to add the approval of Sinovac's EUA in the Philippines sourced ty. 136.158.33.44 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done VictorTorres2002 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Novavax NVX vaccine was dropped from approved list but not added back to the list of vaccines pending approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=1008570543 159.148.9.249 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Vpab15 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 19:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as of 23 February 2021, Ukraine has approved the Oxford University-AstraZeneca (Covishield) vaccine [1] and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for emergency use, following the delivery of 500,000 doses of the former on the same day.

I have a news source for the Oxford-AstraZeneca approval, however the only valid source I have for the Pfizer-BioNTech is via Ukrainian state television, so if you could find a source on the internet that would be great.

Thanks very much, MBihun (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

[1] https://covid.unian.info/covid-19-astrazeneca-vaccine-certified-for-use-in-ukraine-11330906.html?_gl=1*fryvqi*_ga*NDAyMzMwMTU0LjE2MTQxMDU2MTM.*_ga_P6EEJX21DY*MTYxNDEwNzk5NC4yLjEuMTYxNDEwNzk5NS41OQ..*_ga_DENC12J6P3*MTYxNDEwNzk5NC4yLjAuMTYxNDEwNzk5NC42MA..&_ga=2.24267389.672190660.1614105614-402330154.1614105613

 Done --MBihun

Here is decree of Ministry of Health about registration of Covishield and Comirnaty (22-02-2021): [12].Anatoliy (Talk) 19:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've created maps showing the countries each vaccine has been authorized in, divided by type:

• File:COVID-19 adenovirus vaccines authorization map.svg
• File:COVID-19 RNA vaccines authorization map.svg
• File:COVID-19 inactivated vaccines authorization map.svg

These maps can be updated in a text editor; there is a list using ISO country codes a little ways down from the top. When uploading, please overwrite the old file rather than creating a new version. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Taiwan has its own Food and Drug administration and it has not approved China's inactivated-virus vaccines. The map shows that Taiwan has approved both, and this piece of information is inaccurate. Taiwan's authorities have only authorized the Astrazeneca-Oxford Adenovirus vaccine. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocprcr (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

these maps are very nice, would you add an "Other vaccines" map too, with vaccines that at the moment can't be grouped with other approved ones (only epivaccorona as of Feb 26)? SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please improved this article the following:

• Draft:ZyCoV-D
• Draft:PTX-COVID19-B
• Draft:CoviVac
• Draft:ARCT-021
• Draft:INO-4800

Add more sources and details needs it. 136.158.33.204 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to propose adding to the first paragraph a reference to the request for the waive of patents made by some countries. For me, it would be nice to add something like this:

At the WTO, a group of developing countries led by India and South Africa and with the support of MSF are calling for the temporary suspension of patents for COVID-19 vaccines for the duration of the pandemic. This request is opposed, among other countries, by the majority of the members of the European Union, the United States and the United Kingdom. Some references about it: WSF The Guardian DW Catholic News Service

It would also be good to add this paragraph in the introduction of COVID-19 pandemic, I think it deserves that level of importance. I would like to accept writing suggestions as English is not my first language.Verent (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Only one of the vaccines being developed by Cuba is listed in this article. Two are in Phase three trials. All four should be added, though someone who reads Spanish might have to chase down

I removed the column in the authorized vaccines table with the early-phase trials, since many Phase III trials appear to be complete, and the table was getting cluttered with the addition of the dose and storage temperature columns. The information is available at this diff in case anyone wants to restore the information elsewhere. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

According to two sources Taiwan approves both AstraZeneca and Moderna and plan to start administering the first batch in April. Could this be added to the list https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/made-in-taiwan-covid-19-vaccines-could-be-ready-in-july-14288902 https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202102260008 Sadiemydog1 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

These sources say that there's an agreement to purchase the vaccines, but not that they've been authorized. Countries have often been entering into these agreements provisionally before the authorization actually happens. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the variants section is sourced to preprints, clinical trials, and news websites. Possible

Made an initial pass [13]. An urgent

WP:MEDRS cleanup is needed in the whole article. I asked for more help here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#WP:MEDRS_cleanup_needed_at_the_COVID-19_vaccine_article might help to attract more editors. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

13:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a general trend of tolerating preliminary results and primary sources for certain vaccines and technologies, which is not

WP:NPOV. We must not turn a blind eye to some and not others, and we must balance the need to be cautious with the need to inform about a rapidly evolving situation. --Fernando Trebien (talk

) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS compliant. Usually editors are just not aware of this policy. MEDRS has held throughout the pandemic beautifully and has helped us avoid substantial errors and the spread of misinformation. If something is sufficiently important it will pass peer review quickly and be published or reported by a MEDRS compliant body (e.g. WHO, CDC, ECDC etc.). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk

13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

because i have many grammar issues i wish to correct in this article Ashie000 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please outline the grammar issues you'd like to correct by quoting the article and then providing the text you'd use to replace it. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

... or how about even just one? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Brazil has just granted FULL approval for the Oxford vaccine. Urcaria (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. Sorry, you'd need to provide a source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have photos of a protest in germany on the WTO decision for the part COVID-19 vaccine#Access. But as the article is protected I can not add a photo. c:Category:GebtDiePatenteFrei protest Berlin 2021-03-10 --GPSLeo (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@

make a edit request. Suggest reading the instructions carefully. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time

13:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The

 Done Abrilando232 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The data for deployment at the bottom is out of order. 42.60.240.68 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

HELLO,

I AM FROM LEBANON. Lebanon has approved Pfizer vaccine and we start vaccinated people 3 weeks ago. it should be added to list of country that approved Pfizer.

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210214-lebanon-starts-covid-19-vaccination-campaign 193.84.115.136 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I will add it 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find the section you are looking for. Sorry. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:46, 10 March 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

talk

) 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I came to this article looking for the numeric comparisons of efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J's vaccine (which have been widely reported in the popular press). I scrolled down and came to the chart in "List of authorized and approved vaccines" which, in the bright green highlighted column ("Current phase (participants)") reports the "efficacy" or "overall efficacy" in narrative text for most vaccines, including Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech. Yet it does not do so for Johnson & Johnson, merely saying "Positive results from an interim analysis were announced on 29 January 2021."

Yet, later on in the article, in the "Efficacy" section, there is a table that reports numeric results for 10 vaccines, including the three above. Although J&J's is a little more complicated (4 rows instead of 1), it seems like it could easily be summarized in the first table's narrative text.

It seems to me important that the article provide information people are looking for in the first place they look for it. Both because the first table is first, and also because it lists efficacy for other vaccines, it ought to list it for J&J as well. Why is it omitted? Thanks. (I am reluctant to edit this article because it's a complicated fast-moving topic.) jhawkinson (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hearing nothing,  Done. jhawkinson (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the "Authorization" column in the table in the "List of authorized and approved vaccines" section. I can see that becoming really bloated as almost every country in the world ends up approving these vaccines for use. Maybe not yet, but in the future, we may want to consider ways to condense or remove that column. Right now we are listing every country that approves or emergency approves each vaccine, and including a reference, which is (in my opinion) bloating the table, bloating the page load time, and bloating the references section quite a bit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been concerned about that too. I have been copying this data into the articles for each of the vaccines, and use it to populate a map, which I think is a better way to understand the situation. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been using it to populate maps as well. It's a bit unwieldy to dig through the diffs to find what needs to be added to the maps. It would be nice to have a centralized list that automatically feeds into all these articles and maps. For articles, we could have a template that transcludes the proper list into each article/table cell. This would also eliminate the technical difficulties of editing the list-in-a-template-in-a-table-cell, which doesn't work well with Visual Editor. Maps are trickier since I don't think there's a module that can dynamically generate an SVG map in-Wiki. But at least it would be easier to sort through the diffs. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae and Ftrebien: I did a mock-up of a template at User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)/COVID using only the Pfizer authorizations. For the table cell you'd use:
{{Collapsible list|title=Emergency|{{Plainlist|{{User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)/COVID|Pfizer emergency}}}}}}
and for the articles you'd use:
{{Columns-list|{{User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)/COVID|Pfizer emergency}}}}
(Of course, it would be moved into template space if adopted.) The template itself is normally editable as a regular bulleted list, even in Visual Editor. Thoughts? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), thanks for working on that. I worry that it doesn't solve the issue with this article loading slowly due to the massive number of citations (625 whole article, 524 those two tables only). I think that transcluded citations end up in the reflist for the parent article. Another idea that occurs to me that hasn't been mentioned yet is spinning out the entire table into its own article. A third idea is to move this data to the vaccine articles, in their own sections, maybe as a three column bulleted list. {{columns-list|colwidth=15em|* list goes here}} Then the column could be deleted from this article's table. No strong opinion though, feel free to pursue your idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: That could also work—split a List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations article, remove the column here and keep the rest of the table and the maps? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), that sounds quite promising. I think I like that option the best so far. Would just need to make sure the data looked OK in the child article. I wonder what data structure would be best. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Probably just a regular bulleted list, with columns if it's long. Each section could have an image alongside. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Really nice! I did some testing, we can also add to the template you created (1) the map (works with the visual editor) and (2) an edit link (so readers of the various articles can maintain the lists). I can help with that. It seems that most COVID-19-related templates are being placed under Template:COVID-19 pandemic data, so maybe Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Vaccine authorizations would be a good place. Then, the only question left is whether we create a single template for all vaccines or we break it down for each vaccine, for example, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Vaccine authorizations/Pfizer-BioNTech, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Sputnik V, and so on. Splitting by vaccine may be easier to maintain. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting into separate templates would be more difficult to maintain, since people who want to make updates have to dig through several pages to find the right one to edit, and people who are scanning the diffs to update the maps can't do it all at once.

Honestly, I think keeping it as an article-space list is the simplest solution. The main benefit of a template is that it can be reproduced in both this and the individual vaccine articles, but I think just wikilinking to the proper section of the list article is just as good. In general

WP:IAR with COVID-19 since there are a lot of articles with overlapping topics. But having thought about it, I don't think there's much advantage for a template in this case. (And if people still want to include parts of the list somewhere, they can use Template:Excerpt just as well.) John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk

) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. So, would we replace the lists in this by links to the sections of each article with the lists? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I split the information in the authorizations column of the table into the new article List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations. The information is now in a regular bulleted list rather than a list-within-a-template-within-a-table, which has several advantages:

• It can be edited easily in both source mode (formerly awkward) and Visual Editor (formerly impossible).
• Better organization and presentation of the list is possible.
• People scanning diffs to update maps do not have to filter through extraneous text or edits.
• If desired, the sections can be transcluded into individual vaccine articles using Template:Excerpt.
• Since the new article is not semi-protected (for now), we won't have so many edit requests to deal with.

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There's another benefit too. Load time and citation count of this article went down. Looks great. Thanks for your work on this. One final thought. Should we perhaps get rid of the authorization counts in this article? For example, replace "Emergency (36) Full (12)" with "Click here", so that we don't have to go to the work of trying to keep those in sync? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should use "click here" - per

WP:SELFREF... but I honestly think the entire tables should be moved to the List article as a "summary" section - and the information should simply be summarized in prose in the main article here. Then the list can simply be a "see also" link at the top of the section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!

) 01:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I am new to this article but coming here, 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) 04:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen edits adding authorizations and forgetting to update the count, so I support the removal of that column. We can add a link to the complete list at the top on the table caption. Another thing I was thinking, I'm not sure if authorization count is really the best way to sort the list by default because some vaccines have been authorized by a large number of small countries with small populations. If we want to sort them by relevance, notability, impact or something related to these ideas, then the number of potential recipients (the sum of the population of the countries that authorized the vaccine) would be a better metric, but very difficult to assess. Perhaps manufacturing projections would be better. But then, that would be better in its own column as it can change, then readers can sort by that column if they wish. It would be better if the default sorting was stable, for example, if it were alphabetical. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The GRAd-COV2 vaccine by ReiThera just entered phase 2/3 clinical study (source: [15]). 176.206.19.94 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Abrilando232 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The WHO (in "Status of COVID-19 Vaccines within WHO EUL/PQ evaluation process") mentions two vaccines by Sinopharm: BIBP and WIBP. According to this article, the WIBP vaccine has a clinical trial registered with ChiCTR. Should we add an entry for WIBP? It doesn't seem to have an official name yet. A few days ago, one of my edits was reverted because I mistook one for the other; in any case, that was the efficacy of the WIBP vaccine. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If they're different vaccines, they should both be included. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

this article also gives two sinopharm vaccines and says they're both approved in china and u.a.e. it also includes two phase 3 vaccines not included in the table: a second cuban one, and an australian one. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.htmlSquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In 'Inactivated virus vaccines' we see 'As of January 2021, authorized vaccines of this type are the Chinese CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV and the Indian Covaxin, as well as CoviVac.' It is better to add Russian before CoviVac as well as Chinese CoronaVac and Indian Covaxin. LeoGroo (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sanofi/GSK vaccine is now in Phase 3 instead of Phase 1/2, as per the WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines Pdog1000 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 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.​ Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the brand name of Novavax COVID-19 vaccine as (Covovax) to be manufactured by Serum Institute of India per earlier agreement for India and other countries.^[1][2]

2402:3A80:113B:623E:BCED:2A78:D96B:4125 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Abrilando232 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abrilando232: Please correct the spelling. Its Covovax not Covavax 2402:3A80:113B:623E:BCED:2A78:D96B:4125 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done again Abrilando232 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)