Talk:Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines

You guys might wanna check out the message I left at Template talk:COVID-19 vaccination data#Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines by country. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's clear that

The first bad edit is this deletion on 25 April 2021.

The edit summary given is "Breaching a contract means you are liable for breach of contract. Really?" Um, no. That kind of silly tautology is a gross distortion of what the sentence says, which was: "Under the terms of those contracts, the U.S. government cannot donate or sell doses to other countries without risking massive liability for breach of contract." This sentence (which is cited to the Katherine Eban article) is necessary because the contracts do not expressly prohibit the government from donating or selling doses. Rather, as Eban explains, such donation or sale is inconsistent with the limitations on use in the contracts and therefore would impliedly ​amount to a breach.

The second bad edit is this one -- specifically, the new sentence claiming that "some of the vaccine manufacturers have refused to amend the language as the U.S. under Trump had offered them the most liability protection." This sentence is clearly referring to the prospect of attempted post-contract amendments, which is not what Eban is talking about.

Rather, her main point was that at the time the contracts were negotiated, the vaccine manufacturers apparently demanded geographical use limitations in order to ensure complete liability protection under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and at that time, the U.S. government could have pushed harder for contracts without geographical use limitations, but failed to do so.

The third bad edit is this one on 26 April, which is atrocious.

The original text is as follows: "Several have pointed out that the subtext of this debate involves something even bigger than COVID-19: control of the revolutionary technology of RNA therapeutics. Howard Dean has criticized patent waiver advocates for being "disingenuous" about their true objective since patent waiver is unlikely to accelerate vaccine production."

The revised sentence is as follows: "Some, including Howard Dean, have theorized that patent waiver advocates are more focused on gaining access to trade secrets underlying RNA therapeutics than accelerating the production of COVID-19 vaccines."

That is not what any of the cited sources actually said. The original text that I wrote correctly summarized the cited sources as (1) pointing to a larger debate and then (2) Dean in particular criticizing patent waiver advocates as "disingenuous."

The revised text by User:Connor Behan states that Dean theorized that patent waiver advocates are more focused on one thing over another (in other words, prioritization). No. The point that Dean only (and not the other cited sources) is trying to make in his op-ed is that patent waiver advocates are trying to leverage the issue of accelerating vaccine production to gain access to trade secrets. He's saying they are trying to use one thing to get to another thing (in other words, exploitation).

Any objections before I take out the trash? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with "Under the terms of those contracts, the U.S. government cannot donate or sell doses to other countries without risking massive liability for breach of contract." As far as I know, every legally binding contract is such that one of the parties will risk paying a penalty for breach of contract if the terms are not upheld. It is obvious that the penalty in this case would be "massive" since the vaccine order was also massive. The sentence "Under the terms of those contracts, the U.S. government cannot donate or sell doses to other countries" sounds perfectly fine on its own, but the previous one already says "the U.S. government had expressly agreed in its contracts with vaccine manufacturers to use doses only in the United States and its territories". You say This sentence (which is cited to the Katherine Eban article) is necessary because the contracts do not expressly prohibit the government from donating or selling doses. Rather, as Eban explains, such donation or sale is inconsistent with the limitations on use in the contracts and therefore would impliedly ​amount to a breach. This sounds like a very pedantic distinction since it would make no sense to donate or sell a product to another country without authorizing its use there. Perhaps one scenario would be donating or selling vaccines with the stipulation that people can only inject them after walking into the nearest American embassy or consulate.

You are right about the second edit. When I saw The contracts the Trump administration signed with the vaccine manufacturers prohibit the U.S. from sharing its surplus doses with the rest of the world., that sounded like it was referring to "all contracts" whereas later we see DoD did attempt to negotiate terms that would allow the use of vaccine doses outside the U.S., but in some cases, the vaccine manufacturers refused. which only refers to "some cases". I thought this meant there had been some progress at reaching a post-contract amendment but now I agree that this was the wrong interpretation.

Finally, how does the part about RNA technology qualify as subtext? The drug companies have explicitly stated that it's one of the main things stopping them from agreeing to be part of a wider technology transfer.

WP:DUE to have an extra sentence about his op-ed even though he takes it further with accusations against Narendra Modi. True objective (which is part of the last sentence) means objective with the higher priority, even though the manoeuvre Dean describes would be exploitative as well. Connor Behan (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems a lot of the lead was written over a year ago and describes future plans (of the UK) which have now partially been put in place. A lot of the reports and plans are from April 2020 and there is things in there that are really bad, like "A March 2021 survey of 77 epidemiologists concluded that mutations would render existing vaccines ineffective within one year — a window which wealthy nations were on pace to meet". A survey is an opinion poll and cannot conclude anything scientifically, this just does not seem to up to the standards of Wikipedia and Portal Medicine. --hroest 15:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. efficacy of different vaccines 2. statistics showing how many people get Covid who have been vaccinated vs unvaccinated 2601:587:102:30D0:C03:4EB5:E964:3854 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be splitting up AstraZeneca and Covishield since they are two different brands? Yes they are the same vaccine, but EU Member States have mostly approved Vaxzevria while Canada has approved both Vaxzevria and Covishield. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the beginning of the pages states that the percentage is:

> Percentage of population that has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. May include vaccination of non-citizens, which can push totals beyond 100% of the local population.

This can't be correct. Sweden's number should in that case be around 112%. There seem to be a mix up or we should change so it states how many that have gotten two vaccines instead. Mrconter1 (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Immunity passport about the article's purpose of which relates to the content of this article. More voices would be appreciated. CaffeinAddict (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table COVID-19 vaccine production by manufacturer is incompletely copied from its source. E.g. in the source it lists Pfizer/Biontech as a manufacturer. The table here lists only Pfizer, but Pfizer does not deliver to Germany and Turkey. Either subtract the number of doses deliverd by Biontech or include both companies.--2A02:810A:11BF:E564:AC71:8D41:BF6D:8218 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]