Talk:COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remove/move some trial columns of the vaccines table

@Albertaont, Halil marx07, SYSS Mouse, Wester, and Amkgp: I propose that we move the content of the columns Completed phase (participants) Immune response, adverse effects, Clinical trial site(s) and Duration to the respective vaccine articles/sections. This would ensure that the table only shows current, relevant and not too technical/detailed information. Such action is important because the EUA and Full authorization columns are going to grow a lot in the near future and are going to make the rows too tall if nothing is done. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to make two different tables: one about the trials and one about their deployment, inline with Yair rand's proposition in Splitting off deployment?. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have 34" ultrawide display, certainly not a problem for me. 2A00:1370:812D:8B95:3122:DC37:6254:A833 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ftrebien, could we add Locationa and Duration to Template:ClinicalStudyInfo? This would allow us to place relevant data in a single line below each trial phase and eliminate two columns. I agree that the table should also be split into two: Regionally approved vaccines and Vaccine candidates based on approval but the columns should ideally remain unchanged. I don't believe we need to list every country per WP:NOTNEWS. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Agree. Besides WP:NOTNEWS, it'll be unfeasible to list every country because of cell size limitations, even without those two columns, unless only country flags are shown. Splitting tables is the best solution either way. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz, JFRN, Normchou, Albertaont, MSG17, Jirka.h23, and Amkgp: I added the desired parameters to the template in a simple manner as a first step. Now the cells can start populating these fields and the tables have those two columns removed. It's very important to do this as some row heights are getting out of hand. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexiscoutinho, thanks! Can/should we change "sites" to "locations" before we start to populate? I think that may be a clearer description for future users. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I put "sites" because editors were often including the number of "places" for each location. For example, Tozinameran had "62 in Germany, US". If editors are encouraged to find these specific numbers, then I think all trial locations should specify sites. Otherwise, if it's discouraged, then the field should be changed to "locations" and all such numbers should be removed. Do you think we should start a section to decide that? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling on this but I'd favor removing the site counts. It seems like an excessive detail that isn't maintained or consistently applied. Also not sure we have the count breakdown by trial phase. "Locations" would still support the site counts (e.g. Locations: 2 in Germany) but I do think the numbers should be removed. They can be detailed on the individual vaccine pages. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree on this point. I think there are a lot of details that can be relocated in general now that we have separate pages for the most prominent vaccines. Great work! MSG17 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I made the parameter name change and am dropping the site counts as I move over the data. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved over all of the data for the first table. Thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I see the dates of approval have mostly been removed. I think I will make a table for them as per my proposal below.MSG17 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho: I think Clinical trial site(s) can go, and to a lesser extent Duration since they are talked about in Current Phase. I think we should leave Completed phase (participants) Immune response, adverse effects in since its used as an important gating item for the table and also describes the progress being made for each individual vaccine. I expect populating of Phase III results as well over the next few months for the first 4-5 frontrunners. Albertaont (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, especially through Wikmoz's template request. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Separate approval table

With more countries approving and starting to distribute COVID-19 vaccines, especially Tozinameran, I think it might be prudent to make a separate table with countries and approval dates. This could either use the country name as a primary sort or be structured as a timeline and be ordered by day. Any thoughts? MSG17 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Over the coming weeks and months, there will be a number of widely used vaccines, each recieving approvals from 100+ individual health agencies. It will require hundreds of references. The questions that come to mind are who will record the approvals country by country when it becomes more tedious and who will be interested in these data (now or a year from now)? The data would be more relevant in individual country articles (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in Ecuador) where their health agency approvals are of local but not global significance. Or perhaps in a new section in each vaccine article (e.g. Tocilizumab), but even there, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, when you combine that with the geopolitics that have been involved in vaccine production, putting it in country articles would make more sense. In fact, an article on the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom has already been created, which may be another good place to put this info, although I don't know if it will be significant enough to stay or if it'll get merged into another article. MSG17 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine 2020 summary in PLOS

• Bastian, Hilda (20 December 2020). "Why Two Vaccines Passed the Finishing Line In a Year and Others Didn't, and a Month 12 Roundup". Absolutely Maybe. PLOS.

This is CC-By like all of PLOS content.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Correct capitalization for the Emergency Use Authorization and EUA links (capitalize as shown) so that when you move your mouse over the link it does not display an error (this happens many times over the page). 46.12.116.34 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, what error are you seeing? Giving us more information about what you're seeing will help us fix this. Also, if any technical problems persist, consider asking for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Seagull123 Φ 14:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting I fixed the capitalization and bad links to Emergency Use Authorization. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Split "mass vaccination underway or planned" categories in the map and table

@MSG17, Halil marx07, and Jrcraft Yt: I think most readers will first and mostly want to know where vaccination has already begun. This is the most important status as it shows which countries are already potentially saving lives thanks to their boldness or logistical preparedness. I think Russia and the UK are the only ones in such category. I propose these preliminary categories for the map:

  Approved for general use, mass vaccination underway

  EUA granted, mass vaccination underway

  EUA granted, limited vaccination

  Approved for general use, mass vaccination planned

  EUA granted, mass vaccination planned

  EUA pending

The table could have an extra column Vaccination with Mass and Limited subcategories in the cells. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed color scheme would be interesting. I wonder what should be done from countries that, as far as I know, don't have a EUA for any vaccine yet but have announced plans for authorization and mass vaccination (Morocco and Israel). On the other hand, it might not be a good idea to add more columns to the table at this point, although I see you have proposed splitting the trial related ones. MSG17 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the category you are wondering about is worth including as it is the least impactful. Furthermore, it would be harder to track which countries have such plans as it's kinda "all talk". By the way, I'm not sure if the orange variants fit the best with the categories trend. I didn't change them because I wanted to make a minimalistic first proposition. I think we should reassess them. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

True, true. I think it would still be useful to keep track of which countries have given a EUA but not rolled out the vaccine on a mass scale, if that's what you mean by the "orange variants". The EUA pending, as a category that is also in a similar position of early planning, might indeed be less so. I'll start looking at how the rollouts are going.MSG17 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@MSG17: Oops. I wasn't clear about the "orange variants". What I meant was to keep the categories but change the colors. I think the   DarkOrange category should become a lighter shade of green so that the three shades of green show the scope of vaccination. I also think we should detach the authorization and vaccination categories as, for example, a country in the   SpringGreen or   DarkOrange category may bump its authorization category but still maintain the same vaccination scope for a few days, requiring more combinations of categories. Maybe something like this?:

  Mass general use vaccination underway

  Mass EUA vaccination underway

  Limited vaccination underway

  Approved for general use

  EUA granted

  EUA pending

Not sure if general use and EUA should be before mass... That other category I was wary about would now be a (lesser) "yellow variant". Of course you could add it, it's your work. I just think it would be a lot of unnecessary search. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that scheme is good. I am not sure if having three shades of green will work so well though, so I will rewrite the SVG and test it out. I'll probably update it sometime today. MSG17 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The second and third green green shade is almost indistinguishable so definitely needs to be changedSYSS Mouse (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@SYSS Mouse and MSG17: What about?:

  Mass general use vaccination underway

  Mass EUA vaccination underway

  Limited vaccination underway

Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the distinction between an EUA and a "regular" authorization is not important for the map. Different countries have different types of authorizations. We would need 200+ different colors to cover all cases. I think we should simplify the map with vaccination campaign started, vaccine approved or pending authorization. Only 3 colors, plus grey for other countries. By the way, US and Canada started vaccination as well. zorxd (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The map is great but having six different colors is needlessly complex. Also not sure that "pending" anything is helpful. Every country is pending approvals and mass vaccination. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are the articles describing the mass vaccination programs in various countries

Was quite surprised to be unable to find the articles on the mass vaccination programs in the various countries. I hope I'm just searching badly, and the articles exist; but really seriously surprised, and would expect good linkage from this article to those.

Can anyone help? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A consolidated section on the global distribution effort should be created. Content can pulled from several existing sections noted here. For a deep dive into individual country distribution efforts, you should be able to find those in the 'COVID-19 pandemic in COUNTRY NAME' topics. There's a breakout article for the UK: COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom but I suspect it may be rolled back into COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom in the future. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Section duplication

It looks like there are three sections with overlapping content...

• COVID-19 vaccine § Partnerships, competition, and distribution
• COVID-19 vaccine § Global development
• COVID-19 vaccine § COVID-19 vaccine development in 2020

Can someone help reorganize under better headings and consolidate duplicate content? - Wikmoz (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Took a pass at reorganizing along development phases. Will surely require more work but I think it's a step in the right direction. The content sequence is more logical and provides a clearer drilldown for mobile TOC users...

Before

1. Synopsis and history
2. Global development
3. WHO COVID-19 trials
4. Partnerships, competition, and distribution
5. Compressed timelines
6. Technology platforms
7. Vaccines
8. Potential limitations
9. Proposed challenge studies
10. Authorizations
11. Equitable access
12. Licensure
13. Commercialization
14. Supply chain
15. Liability
16. Misinformation
17. Society and culture

After

1. Planning and investment
2. Compressed timelines
3. Development
4. Trials
5. Vaccines
6. Potential limitations
7. Authorizations
8. Licensure
9. Deployment
10. Supply chain
11. Liability

Wikmoz (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Please add Belarus: (Ministry of Health of The Republic of Belarus) in the table of (EUA) as the second country to register/approve Gam-COVID-Vac (references as follows) (1) Staff, Reuters (21 December 2020). "Belarus registers Sputnik V vaccine, in first outside Russia - RDIF". Reuters. {{cite news}}: |first1= has generic name (help) (2) "Belarus to start COVID vaccinations in January". eng.belta.by. 21 December 2020. 42.106.198.20 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 11:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Update BBV152 (Covaxin)

Phase I-II results for BBV152 (Covaxin) have been released today. Kindly update the page. Arjunuws (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

the company announced the report for Phase I trials and presented the results through medRxiv preprint. Arjunuws (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

If you use news reports, please make sure that you don't make biomedical claims because news media is not a suitable source for that sort of content. The preprint is a usable source for the fact that a preprint exists, and for very little else. All content on medRxiv carries the disclaimer Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. The content does not meet WP:RS. --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

the map needs to be updated

the map needs to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copernici81 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oxford-Astrazeneca applied from EUA

Should we add the pending EUA from vaccine candidate sourced or sourced 120.29.113.78 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

New map

When was the map switched out? The previous version was much easier to keep updated by simply editing the source code. What was the rationale for the change? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Survivors

I'd like to see some discussion of the vaccination of people who has suffered COVID-19. Does it matter if they are asymptomatic, with mild symptoms, severe symptoms? Are the vaccines indicated/irrelevant/dangerous for them? --Error (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

chAdOx1 efficacy confirmed at minimum 95% on a two-dose regimen

Further, the Times and The Telegraph have also published three articles here, here and here citing Oxford Labs and AstraZeneca confirming 100% protection from any serious/fatal symptoms. Roland Of Yew (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: WP:MEDPOP applies: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." You need a reliable secondary source to make any claim about efficacy. When the data has been published in a respectable scientific journal and analysed by a competent source, then it can be included. Your behaviour is unacceptable and you must self-revert and refrain from edit-warring as this article is subject to general discretionary sanctions as described at WP:GS/COVID19#GS. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, there seems to be considerable contradictions here. If editors check the articles ‘approved vaccines’ section and peruse the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 entries citations they will see they are from publications such as Reuters, the NYT or ‘business wire’ websites. Meanwhile, the sources I cite are direct quotes in extremely reputable publications from the research scientists directly involved and heads of the vaccine manufacturers directly referring to the most recent vaccine analysis. As for the ‘secondary sources’ Dr Margaret Harris of the W.H.O has analysed the data and commented directly on it to various broadcasters today all of which is available on said broadcasters publications. With this in mind, I see absolutely no problem in citing these sources and unless editors are willing to delete all these non-reputable citations associated with “approved vaccines” I contend that my edits stand as is.Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and particularly avoid edit warring on articles for which there are discretionary sanctions in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am referring to existing sources cited as reputable that as far as I understand no-one has an issue with.Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I don't think I can make it any clearer: medical claims (such as the efficacy of a vaccine) cannot be supported by primary sources (such as Astra Zeneca’s chief executive), nor by reports of press releases in the popular press (such as the Times). You twice inserted biomedical content based on newspaper articles: Covid vaccine boost for millions as hospitals near breaking point and Pascal Soriot interview. If you can't accept that biomedical content requires high-quality secondary sources and not articles in the popular press, then you'll leave me no alternative but to topic ban you from medical-related articles. In addition you must not reinstate content that has been challenged in an article subject to general sanctions, and I'm prepared to block you if you repeat that behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RoY, that something exists in an article because no one wants to edit war to get rid of it does not imply it is compliant. It often merely indicates that some policy-compliant medical editors have given up on trying to keep up with faulty sourcing in COVID medical content. Regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS junk in articles, you should not continue same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RoY, the rules for "biomedical content" are complex. That a drug has been approved by a government body is an economic/legal fact that media such as quality newspapers are generally held to be reliable for, though if we wish to make the effort, can probably improve on. But efficacy is a particularly medical claim that requires WP:MEDRS sourcing. However, a "topic ban [on] from medical-related articles" is not warranted by your edit history nor the discretionary sanctions peculiar to Covid articles. I see exactly one questionable revert, which is a long way away from anyone being topic banned or blocked. Please don't interpret that, however, as an invitation to make further reverts or addition of material with questionable sources. Discuss, don't war, but remember that there is long-standing consensus on the degree of sourcing required here, and you are unlikely to overturn that. We could seriously do with a bit more positively guiding comments on this talk page vs nuclear threats towards editors who made their first contentious edit on this page today. Is it any wonder that our best medical editors would rather stick forks in their eyes than edit in this sort of vicious environment. -- Colin°^Talk 22:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your balanced, neutral approach Colin.

In regards to other editors comments, I didn’t realise that citing reputable sources like The Times or The Telegraph were ‘questionable sources’ having noticed ‘Business Wire’, ‘Reuters’ and the ‘NYT’ citations. Nor what counted against an editor on Wikipedia was ‘undoing’ what I believed was a mistaken revert ‘edit warring’. With this in mind, I’ll cite the new reports that are due to be published in the next few days which will include secondary sources. However, for balance, I’ll also (if acceptable) remove the ‘Business Wire’, Reuters, and the New York Times citations as they tend to cause confusion among editors inexperienced in editing bio-medical articles . Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Planning and investment content duplication

It appears that most of COVID-19 vaccine § Planning and investment was copied to Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. If we're keeping this breakout article then we need to remove the content from this topic and transclude back the excerpt using {{excerpt|Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator|paragraphs=1}}. I'm not clear how best to separate the national contributions since this section is half duplicated but should remain. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr, RexxS, and Sdkb: for content deduplication input. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz - my sense is that copyediting is the solution, with the goal of retaining content in both articles for the common reader, WP:READER. Both articles are current and dynamic for updates. The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (COVAX) article is a major international topic that will be increasingly important over 2021 and longer for COVID-19 vaccines. If the transclude code doesn't interfere with each article keeping relevant content, WP:TRANS, then it could be done, but I am inclined to edit rather than remove content or worry about coding. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that copy editing is the solution. Which version should be copy edited though? We can transclude the content in whole or in part back to this topic but to avoid duplication of effort there should be a single copy of the content. Ideally, someone could author a solid 2-3 paragraph lead for Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, which can then be transcluded here. For the moment, perhpas we should have the content live in Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator and transclude it in full to this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I see you did some serious editing to Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator. It's a big improvement! Does the new four paragraph lead cover all the major points? If so, we can probably cut some of the transcluded subsections from this topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Pollard quoted stating AZD1222 90%+ efficacy claim to be peer reviewed in 24 hours

source Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this old news from November relevant? Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Because it’s breaking news? The 90% plus efficacy claim is being peer reviewed within the next 24 hours. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not breaking news, it's from November. (Not that Wikipedia does breaking news anyway, at least in theory). The news today is apparently that this vaccine has been approved, so we've moved on quite a bit since this anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I give up, every time I tried to edit in the correct link (its early) there was an edit conflict and I’ve been trying for 25 minutes so I’m giving up now.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

New Novavax Phase III trial

Novavax started the PREVENT-19 (NCT04611802) Phase III trial in the US and Mexico.

"A Study Looking at the Efficacy, Immune Response, and Safety of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Adults at Risk for SARS-CoV-2". ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieved 30 December 2020.

"Phase 3 trial of Novavax investigational COVID-19 vaccine opens". National Institutes of Health (NIH). 28 December 2020. Retrieved 28 December 2020. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Added this to the table. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

NIH-CoVnb-112

Please consider adding NIH-CoVnb-112 nanobodies. Reference:

• Neuroscientists isolate promising mini antibodies against COVID-19 from a llama. ScienceDaily
• [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-12/nion-nni122120.php NIH neuroscientists isolate promising mini antibodies

against COVID-19 from a llama]. EurekAlert!

What are the current and copmpleted phase of testing this?

Thank you. --Ernsts (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Within section on Liability, add;

In the Uk the civil liability of both manufacturers and persons administering the vaccine has been removed by Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1125) which came into force on 6 November 2020. 176.253.175.38 (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Would need a good secondary source to establish weight and have reliable legal interpretation. Is there one? Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If proper sources are found (seems likely), I recommend changing "removed" to "partially protected". This might be a good place to start. TimSmit (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine table country list

I was thinking of two changes to the EUA and Approved columns in the approved vaccine table to make it a little more usable:

• Remove the approving agency name (e.g. COFEPRIS). It will eliminate line wrapping for a lot of entries. I assume each country's population knows their country's health agency and non-citizens probably don't care. The agency name remains accessible in each reference for those interested.
• Sort alphabetically. The country lists will rapidly expand from here. I'm not sure there's any benefit at all to sequencing these in order of approval.

Any thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I ran with the removal of agency names. Will wait a few more days for objections before changing the sort. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yarscat 18:23, 01 January 2021 (UTC) : 1. As of January 1,2021 India has not yet approved the AZD1222 vaccine, it was just recommended by expert panel for EUA approval (the source [160] does not state it was approved either. The decision by regulator is stil lto be taken.

2.Russian NPO Petrovax is not involved in the developement of Ad5-nCoV, it just runs the clinical trials of the vaccine in Russia. Please edit the page respectively — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarscat (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well please do a research before performing mass removal of verified information. Regarding India, It has been approved for EUA, they are the empowered group setup by Government of India and DCGI to take the decision regarding COVID vaccines. The regulator will only rubber stamp the decision for rollout in market. Also avoid using Facebook as a WP:RS. — Amkgp 💬 19:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

So now the "source said" is equal to approval? OK. Maybe you can also provide a link to a fact that NPO Petrovax is a developer of the Ad5-nCoV vaccine before returning this information? Becasue on their official website they state that they only run trials and Ad5-nCoV was developed by CanSino Biologics Inc. http://petrovax.ru/press_centre/news/2020/2085/ . What issues do you have with a link to the official facebook page of a policy maker, especially if it is given only as an additional link in edits comments section and in arcticle the link was provided to officila website?

They actually collaborated by sponsoring as per Clinicaltrials.gov records. — Amkgp 💬 19:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

They only sponsor clinical trials so to get approval in Russia for further manufacturing (trials are still ongoing while vaccine is already approved in China). Same situation as with Dr.Reddy's trials for Sputnik V in India. In both cases companies don't do any developing, only trials of already developed vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarscat (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Update the map: Vaccine in Serbia

Serbia started vaccination on 24 December and using Pfizer vaccine.(https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/srbija-55427875). Please update the map.

Venezuela is planning to start mass free vaccination as soon as recieves Sputnik V vaccines as per signed agreement on 29 December 2020 (https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Venezuela-Signs-Agreement-for-Mass-Vaccination-With-Suptnik-V-20201229-0010.html) Please update the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarscat (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Sandra Lindsay was the first person in the United States to receive the covid-19 vaccine. Basq6587 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 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. — Amkgp 💬 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for chapter 3.3.2 Efficacy against spread the disease once vaccinated

This is a suggestion because I am not sure of the right place to add this information in this article.

Some references :

Can we still spread the disease once vaccinated? We do not yet know. Additional evaluations will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection, including data from clinical trials and from the vaccine's use post-authorization. Therefore, and for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and respect social distance, so on. Other factors, including how many people get vaccinated and how the virus is spreading in communities may also prompt revision of this guidance

Could people still be infectious after they're vaccinated for COVID-19? Vaccine trials test for efficacy, that is, whether or not a vaccine protects a participant from contracting a specific disease, in this case COVID-19. But trials do not look at whether a person could still be infectious — able to give the disease to other people — after receiving a vaccine. "We just do not know yet the answer to (that) question," said Dr. Jaime Sepulveda, executive director of the Institute for Global Health Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. "The clinical trials were not designed to have that as an endpoint."

Pfizer's chairman says it's not clear whether people who are vaccinated can still spread COVID-19 The chairman of Pfizer said it's not clear whether people who have taken the company's coronavirus vaccine will still be able to spread the virus to other people.

Do I need to wear a mask and avoid close contact with others if I have received 2 doses of the vaccine? Yes. While experts learn more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide under real-life conditions, it will be important for everyone to continue using all the tools available to us to help stop this pandemic, like covering your mouth and nose with a mask, washing hands often, and staying at least 6 feet away from others. Together, COVID-19 vaccination and following CDC’s recommendations for how to protect yourself and others will offer the best protection from getting and spreading COVID-19. Experts need to understand more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide before deciding to change recommendations on steps everyone should take to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Other factors, including how many people get vaccinated and how the virus is spreading in communities, will also affect this decision.

--ENSEA92 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Incorrect References

The references for Astra Seneca and Bharat Biotech vaccine are old and not useful for India. Both the vaccines have got emergency use authorization by DCGI today after the expert panel. I am now quoting the official source Arjunuws (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Map needs to be updated

Numberguy6 the File:COVID-19 vaccine map.svg needs to be updated. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 14:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

Pinging @Canuckguy and MSG17: for help. — Amkgp 💬 15:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I read in a newspaper that El Salvador has approved Oxford vaccine. --159.253.231.34 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

159.253.231.34  Added with Reuters ref— Amkgp 💬 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antondimak: can you please update the color of India and others (if there is a new country). Thank you — Amkgp 💬 18:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Medicago Inc.

I was wondering why Medicago Inc. is not included in the candidates here. It is a Quebec City based company which has a vaccine in Phase II trials of which the Canadian government has pre-ordered up to 76 million doses for [1]. Not sure if I might've missed something on who/what gets included on the candidate list. If there's no objection I'll add it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Medicago's candidate CoVLP had been tracked and revised as trial progress occurred over several months, but the entry was deleted in a move edit by Amkgp on 2 January. Restored to the candidates table. Zefr (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Trial design / side effects

Hello, should there be some mention of:

• this BMJ article, re the trials: "None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus."
• these initial CDC numbers (slide 6)? c.3% (temporary) debilitation? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Biontech vacccine storing temperature

Paragraph 7.3 states that "the Pfizer-BioNTech RNA candidate requires storage between −80 and −60 °C (−112 and −76 °F),[104] or colder throughout deployment until vaccination."

However, the EMA data sheet clearly states in paragraph 6.3, "shelf life": "Unopened vial: 6 months at -90 °C to -60 °C’. Once removed from the freezer, the unopened vaccine can be stored for up to 5 days at 2 °C to 8 °C, and up to 2 hours at temperatures up to 30 °C, prior to use."

Contrary to the statement in 7.3, the final part of the cold chain for the Biontech vaccine can be conveniently realized with standard methods.

--Fsb9 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Covaxin Approval

I request you to add either of the two words or both, that the Covaxin developed by Bharat Biotech has got "Monitored Emergency Approval" or "Emergency Approval in Clinical trial mode" this means All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial and remove the word "restricted". This has been made official by the Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Minister of Health and family welfare, India on Twitter. Arjunuws (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done — Amkgp 💬 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

UK Moderna Approval

The Authorized and Approved vaccines table needs updated to reflect UK approval of the Moderna Vaccine as per the MHRA "Moderna vaccine becomes third COVID-19 vaccine approved by UK regulator". UK MHRA. 2021-01-08. 81.108.103.11 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I have just done this but will now add this better reference. Cheers. --Crep1711 (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not WP:HTBAE behavior

@Albertaont: First you reverted my edits [2]. After I corrected and improved the material [3], you reverted again by removing the sources [4]. After I added new sources [5] and reminded you to add next time, you reverted again [6] by completely deleting this part of my contributions.

Persistently removing materials and sources without any attempt to add new sources, materials or showing any acknowledgment of WP:PRESERVE. This is not WP:HTBAE behavior. Normchou ^💬 02:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with User:Albertaont on this one. When you're citing to scientific findings, especially statistics, it's important to precisely and accurately repeat the conclusions in the cited sources, and not try to summarize them at a too high level of abstraction (in this case, trying to paraphrase them as collectively showing efficacy over 90%). What User:Albertaont is getting at is that you need to either repeat the exact efficacy numbers for each vaccine at the cost of being more wordy (vaccine X has A%, vaccine Y has B%) (leaving it up to the reader to draw their own inferences about mRNA vaccines as a whole), or find a reliable source that does that analysis for you and expressly concludes that the mRNA vaccines as a category are showing efficacy at over 90%. Without a reliable source that does that meta-analysis, you're improperly using Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research and that means your edits are crashing into WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's now clearly stated in the opening paragraph that the FDA and EMA set 50% efficacy as the minimum required for approval. 67% is referenced as necessary to achieve herd immunity. So the context is made clear to the reader. But this isn't a pass/fail situation. The specific efficacy number is very important. Both to the person receiving the vaccine and to the general population as it impacts the number of people who must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

remove NIH and NEJM, can't use primary sources WP:MEDRS

I can see a weak argument for disqualifying all of NIH based on BARDA funding but what is the argument for removing NEJM?

What Albertaont is getting at is that you need to either repeat the exact efficacy numbers for each vaccine at the cost of being more wordy (vaccine X has A%, vaccine Y has B%) (leaving it up to the reader to draw their own inferences about mRNA vaccines as a whole), or find a reliable source that does that analysis for you and expressly concludes that the mRNA vaccines as a category are showing efficacy at over 90%. Without a reliable source that does that meta-analysis, you're improperly using Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research and that means your edits are crashing into WP:NOR.

Disagree here. There is an editorial argument to be made against this grouping, which was made but I see no guideline violation. There's no original research or WP:SYNTH involved in the WP:CALC necessary to group a set based on a numeric range. The editor made no representation that the grouping was particularly meaningful (either by type of vaccine or range). If the grouping seems arbitrary or unecessary then there's an editorial argument to be made against it but per WP:BLUE it's not something that is a WP:RS requirement. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Supply Chain - sortable table to show manufacturing capacity for each vaccine by country of manufacture

I have been trying to determine:

1. which countries have approved vaccines, are close to doing so and/or have started vaccinating
2. which countries are manufacturing vaccines and/or are preparing to do so

Something like this:

CoViD-19 Supply Chain

Country	Pfizer-BioNTech	Moderna	AstraZeneca/Oxford	J&J	Sanofi/GSK	Sputnik V	Covaxin
USA	11	22	33	44	55	66	77
India
China
Russia
Belgium
UK

I am sure that there are others who have greater knowledge who would like to take this on...
Enquire (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I suggest against it, within the EU it would start looking really unbalanced (unless you group the EU as an entity vs individual countries). Considering long term (...mid-2021) alot more vaccines will be approved, you may end up with about 20 columns. I suggest instead to append one column next to approved vaccines next to the row on approvals and just list manufacturing capacities by country. Albertaont (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend against this. Not sure how relevant these data are to the average reader and it seems like it will be exhausting to maintain. If there's interest, perhaps we could note the global distribution number to the summary paragraph for each vaccine in the table. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

clinical trial

Please update this clover source, arcturus source, and anges source. 120.29.113.94 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

EpiVacCorona has actually received EUA in Russia back in 2020

EpiVacCorona has actually received EUA approval in Russia back in 2020 so ideally should be moved in to registered vaccines section. Couple of days ago I tried to modify the development section for EpiVacCorona to include information on phase III trials but my changes were retracted due to TASS being unreliable source. Anyway if someone would be willing to make some information search and update of the wikipage that could help:

- The EpiVacCorona received EUA in Russia on October 13, 2020 (registration № ЛП-006504) as stated on Rospotrebnadzor website https://www.rospotrebnadzor.ru/region/rss/rss.php?ELEMENT_ID=15660 The page says that registration is issued based on clinical trials and also says that post-registration trials should involve 40,000 people (is it something like stage III trials?).

- TASS says (https://tass.com/society/1227405) that Russia’s EpiVacCorona vaccine delivered to 9 medical centers for post-registration trials. So the (phase III?) trials started in November 2020, but TASS says it will involve 30,000 people, not 40,000 people as stated by Rospotrebnadzor. This arcticle also confirms that the vaccine is already registered in Russia.

-Tass also issued an article that mass vaccination with EpiVacCorona in Russia to start in 2021. https://tass.com/society/1228675 and includes some updates on the post-clinical trials. One more article from TASS is with update on EpiVacCorona post clinical trials https://tass.com/society/1235115 RBC (reliable source but on Russian) article https://www.rbc.ru/society/30/12/2020/5fec105c9a79471085b71f83 says that EpiVac Corona will be available for general public in Russia in 1st quarter 2021. Interfax issues an arctile that Russia has submitted EpiVacCorona vaccine documents to WHO https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/70566/

So to sum up. The information for EpiVacCorona should clearly be updated since now it is significantly outdated, but maybe someone could do a better search and find more reliable sources to state as refs. Because now it is either TASS/RT or Russian language articles. Yarscat (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

MRNA 1273 (Moderna) & Tozinameran (Pfizer) Suppress Symptoms AZD1222 (Oxford AstraZeneca) Prevents Actual Infection?

Please bear with me, I’m not a medical professional nor trained in genomic’s; however, does the article lay out the facts that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines suppress symptoms while the Oxford vaccine prevents actual infection anywhere? The reason I ask is, I noticed that the descriptions of Mrna 1273 and Tozinameran vaccines are very careful to state that they “prevent illness“ I cannot find anywhere a source that states the two vaccines prevent infection. Here is a briefing that can explain my query far better than I can. The distinction is extremely important and if it is not mentioned in the article I believe it should be and given priority.Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What you're describing is a difference in primary trial endpoints. It does not indicate that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines "suppress symptoms" while the AstraZenica vaccine prevents infection. Merely, it indicates that asymptomatic infections were quantifiable in one study and not yet quantified in the other studies. The primary endpoint for Moderna and Pfizer were how many trial participants developed symptomatic infection confirmed by a postive PCR test. For the AZ trial, some participants also submitted weekly nose swaps to check for asymptomatic infections. So AZ can quantify asymptomatic infections, where Moderna and Pfizer cannot. However, Moderna and Pfizer do have serology testing as a second endpoint to retrospectively check for asymptomatic infections. These data just aren't available yet. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pfizer

Please update the table as UAE and Bahrain are giving the Pfizer jab to any resident that applies for it, so it's full authorization not EUA. --193.188.126.164 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand what EUA means. It does not mean that who gets it is restricted. It means that the authorization is conditional, that is, it could be withdrawn if: (1) the emergency (pandemic) ends, (2) the vaccine turns out to be more dangerous or less effective than believed, or (3) a superior vaccine (available in sufficient quantity) is approved. See here. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Demagogic plutophobic affirmation

"By December, more than 10 billion vaccine doses had been preordered by countries, with about half of the doses purchased by high-income countries comprising only 14% of the world's population."

And comprising how many of the total cases and deaths?81.202.238.193 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

EpiVacCorona (citations are in Russian)

Russia claims that EpiVacCorona is registered in October 2020

https://rg.ru/2020/10/14/putin-obiavil-o-registracii-v-rf-vtoroj-vakciny-ot-covid-19.html

and today vaccination has been started.

https://www.vzsar.ru/news/2021/01/12/pandemiya-v-saratovskyu-oblast-postypila-pervaya-partiya-vakciny-epivakkorona.html

--Anatoliy (Talk) 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian-language footnotes made visible so non-Russian speakers or those leery of ".ru" URLs can be warned (and the footnotes appeared at the bottom of the whole talk page, not this entry. Ocdcntx (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Variant discussion should address concerns about vaccine escape

Variant discussion should address concerns about vaccine escape

Ocdcntx (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Update the map

Vaccination begins in India Nitesh003 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Amkgp 💬 16:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination chart

This template is used in §COVID-19_vaccine#Deployment.

Axelcabrera100 added a great bar chart based on data published by Our World in Data. The chart is featured in COVID-19 vaccine § Deployment but it may make a nice addition in the vaccine section of COVID-19 pandemic as well if this can be templated and fit in a scrollbox. Additionally, it would be helpful if the latest revision date and world total could be templated for inclusion in the body text.

COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 2 Jan 2021

Country	Doses administered (% of population)
World	9,980,000(0.13%)
China	4,500,000(3%)
United States	2,790,000(1%)
United Kingdom	1,000,000(1.5%)
Israel	1,000,000(10%)
Germany	188,553(0.2%)
Canada	108,553(1%)
Bahrain	60,097
Italy	52,037(0.1%)
Russia	52,000(0.05%)
"Production Statistics". github.com/owid/covid-19-data.

@Sdkb, Yug, Admanny, Dudley Miles, Waddie96, and Timeshifter: for template expert input.

- Wikmoz (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, Thank Wikmoz for the ping. It could be relevant to add the countries' population and/or the ratio of the national population vaccinated so far. I added some percentages as a demo. Yug (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point. There will definitely interest in vaccination totals as a % of country population. OWID publishes this data as well. Ideally, this could be neatly incorporated into the same table... just a columm with a % value, no bar. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you did it! - Wikmoz (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I like this world map of vaccination rates, and uploaded it to the commons:

• https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita?stackMode=absolute&region=World - For a table of the latest rate numbers by available country go to the table tab.

I prefer the png version (the top map). Vs the SVG version below it. Though both maps are crisp and sharp all the way up to very large sizes, part of the map date on the SVG version is obscured.

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

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

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Will this automatically update every day? - Wikmoz (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they do updates around every day there. As for here... :) --Timeshifter (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb, Tenryuu, and Timeshifter: Editors have started to manually update individual countries, which is not ideal.. the current world total is off by 30%. I was about to post a support request at Wikipedia:Requested templates but want to check in to verify that Github is the right data source (vs. somehow routing through Wikidata) and that this is generally a worthwhile endeavor. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikmoz, this is the first I'm hearing of this template, so let me see if I understand this: you say Editors have started to manually update individual countries, which is not ideal, which suggests that the country numbers are automated in some way and takes data from Our World in Data. How should the data for the bar graph be updated ideally? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The data are published by OWID on GitHub: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/tree/master/public/data/vaccinations

The 'vaccinations.csv' file includes daily data and totals. There's also a JSON endpoint. I'm not sure of the methods normally used for automating data retreival.

Ideally, the chart would be moved to Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Vaccinations or Template:COVID-19_vaccination_data so we could transclude it eslewhere. Then the global total could be made available to include in the article body text as a variable (as Waddie96 did with Template:Cases_in_the_COVID-19_pandemic) for use in a number of COVID-19 topics.

Not sure if this is doable or exactly how to go about doing it. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow... was surprised to see Template:COVID-19_vaccination_data as a blue link instead of a red one. It looks like RScheiber had already done it! RScheiber, is there a safe way we can control the width and display in a scrollbox when transcluding? Please also note Yug's suggested modification to the above chart incorporating the % of population vaccinated. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help improving the template, i did a crude mash out of the pandemic data templates and the vaccination bar chart. Wikmoz: I had a scroll bar in the template but it completely broke the layout when transcluding the right-aligned bar-chart template. If anyone can add that fine - but i think as long as the list is so short this is optional.--RScheiber (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha and thank you for putting this together! RScheiber, What is the process for updating the data? @Sdkb, Tenryuu, and Yug: I think the inability to add a scroll bar is going to be problematic as additional countries are added. As much as I like the bar visuals, it may be worth biting the bullet and switching over to Template:Wikitable. Could piggyback off the code in Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates. This would allow for two sortable columns (total, and % of population). - Wikmoz (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I'll do some research over the next days if i can re-add the scrollbar without wrecking the general layout. I prefer the bar chart and it would be a pity to loose it.--RScheiber (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings; I'm commenting here to acknowledge them, but I'm too burnt out to engage further. I've tried for months to push for centralization of our COVID-19 data at hubs like Commons and Wikidata that are built to handle it, bringing benefits like automation and multilingualism. It hasn't met with success, so I've given up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Sdkb: What do you think about putting this data into wikidata ? (anyhow data fits that project better) We then could make the template parse wikidata and create a bar chart (uncharted tech territory though). There are already some Infobox Templates in use that do parse wikidata. First we'd need a draft of a data model that seems advisable to us. - RScheiber (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RScheiber, that's what I've been seeking; if you're able to get it done, go for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RScheiber, any luck with the scrollbar? I think vaccination in the most populous countries (and world total) will limit the utility of the bar visual. That along with the inability to sort by % of population vaccinated is making me think Template:Wikitable may be the better approach. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Wikmoz: Soon the large numbers (particularly of the whole world) will detract from the visuals. It is also harder to see what this really means in terms of real progress. The doses per 100 population is more comparable to how countries are really doing in protecting their populations (and the world), as per 1st table at the Ourworldindata source. I think it should switch to that or at least have it as an option. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've converted to a wikitable and figured out a method to automatically build the table in Excel. I think this is the way to go. I'll update later today. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed solution at Template talk:COVID-19 vaccination data. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Revised the proposed solution to focus on counts of the first dose only. Update steps have been simplified. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Priority

I'd like a discussion of how countries choose the priority groups to vaccinate. --Error (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen discussion of what the groups are (which varies from place to place), but not discussion of why they were selected aside from occasional platitudes about "equity" or "protecting the vulnerable".

Personally, I think that it is a raw exercise of political power at the expense of the good. Rational (i.e. Objectivist) ethics would require that the distribution be left to the discretion of the manufacturers of the vaccine. And that they should distribute it so as to maximize their ability to continue to produce it, i.e. first give it to their own employees and the employees of firms in their supply chain to protect them, and then sell it at the highest possible price to make more profit which could be plowed back into producing more vaccine. As those most willing and able to pay are vaccinated and more vaccine is produced, the price would come down so that unvaccinated people could afford to buy it. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer a discussion of how actual countries choose rather than a objectivist preaching. --Error (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For the official line from CDC, see "When Vaccine is Limited, Who Should Get Vaccinated First?". JRSpriggs (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

CDC mentions three goals: (1) Decrease death and serious disease as much as possible. (2) Preserve functioning of society. (3) Reduce the extra burden COVID-19 is having on people already facing disparities.

Death is inevitable for everyone, and the premature death of unfit individuals is a necessary part of the process of Darwinian evolution. Therefor the first goal is pointless.

Reducing disparities similarly runs against the inexorable forces of nature.

Preserving the functioning of society is just another way of saying keeping the economy running. This is indeed desirable, but consider how it can be measured. Any impairment of the economy is an increase in the cost of some economic process. The opportunity to reduce that cost (by vaccinating the workers performing that task) is an opportunity to make a profit and is best measured by how much the business is able to pay to achieve that goal. So selling vaccine to the highest bidder tends to maximize the functioning of the economy and preserve (so far as possible) the functioning of society. It also provides more resources to the production of the vaccine as is appropriate. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Norway and Germany investigate 39 deaths (29/10) after Pfizer (BBNT162b2) vaccination

BMJ source, China health experts call on international community to halt rollout of mRNA vaccines. Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's probably just a coincidence. Either way it's too recent for inclusion. We should wait for a review. Graham Beards (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the China Global Times article is not useable on Wikipedia per WP:RS/P, and is very likely propaganda from the CCP against the Pfizer vaccines (as they seem to be better than the Chinese version). The Norway story was also picked up in Bloomberg (a high-quality RS and not prone to sensationalism given its position as a major financial news source) with Norway Raises Concern Over Vaccine Jabs for the Elderly. I have asked on Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Norway experience for people over 80-years old whether this story is at a stage to be useable (Pfizer is still looking into it, and it is not a given that the deaths were from the vaccine)? Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Like Britishfinance, I strongly discourage relying on the Global Times. The cause is still under investigation, so we should keep an eye on the story as it develops further. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the BMJ is a highly respectable journal or do you mean we should wait on secondary sources? If so, the Norwegian gov has a few reliable sources.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from the BMJ article: "There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”. As I stated in the vaccine article talk page [7] WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS apply (especially with medical claims). We need much better sourcing and not vague "investigations" with such a crucial topic. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto:Thanks very much for the link and the guidance.Roland Of Yew (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additions to map

Pakistan and Nepal should be added to the map for the vaccine receiving emergency authorization. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-nepal/nepal-approves-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-emergency-use-government-statement-idUSKBN29K140

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pakistan-astrazene-idUKKBN29L0DO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.187.162 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing link to DNA vaccine

Starting from the issue in german wikipedia, I'm really surprised that even in en:wikipedia there seems to be an issue with using the term DNA vaccine. The term is nearly completely missing on this page (and others), despite the fact that important adenovirus-based vector-vaccines (AZD1222, Gam-COVID-Vac) are indeed of course DNA vaccines! It does not matter if the vector is a plasmid or a virus, it does matter, if DNA is injected into the cell or not! Hope this (in my opinion strong) issue can be fixed, however, due to the fact that I'm not a native english speaker, I would not be the best author for that. Thanks a lot! --Max schwalbe (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea that the Oxford vaccine was a DNA vaccine, but there are RS calling it so: E.g. COVID-19: Oxford/AstraZeneca’s DNA Vaccine Scores Emergency Use Approval in the UK. However, there are other RS that don't expliticly label it as a DNA vaccine (and they do others), such as this: COVID-19 vaccine: A recent update in pipeline vaccines, their design and development strategies? It is a question that it is a quasi-DNA vaccine but not unambiguously so? I do think we have to be careful here given the conspiracy/scare stories out there regarding COVID vaccines changing DNA etc. I know the Pfizer vaccine is unambiguously an RNA vaccine (and is in the lede), but is it really correct to call AZD1222 a DNA vaccine in its lede? Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gene Online does not appear to be a peer-reviewed source. There needs to a deeper dive into the literature to see whether DNA-containing viral vector vaccines are covered under the term "DNA vaccine". John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact should be obvious. Per definition, DNA vaccines are A DNA vaccine is a type of vaccine that transfects a specific antigen-coding DNA sequence onto the cells of an immunized species. Exactly THIS happens with adenovirus-based vector-vaccines containing modified cov-2-cDNA (examples mentioned above). According ""stories" regarding COVID vaccines changing DNA etc." - unfortunately, in case of vaccines that indeed use adenovirus-vectors and cDNA based on cov-2, this is a realistic scenario. And yes, RNA vaccines as produced by Pfizer/BioNTech are much less risky/much less invasive, because RNA-vaccines do'nt need access to the cell nucleus where human DNA is stored (!). The best would be usual vaccines containing neither RNA nor DNA, but unfortunately, these types of vaccines are currently produced in China (and India I guess) only. Might be that also economic interests might behind all of this... but anyway, I'll also look for scientific literatur that use clearly the term dna vaccines related to the vaccines of AstraZeneca and from Russia. --Max schwalbe (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Puhh, indeed, recent scientific literatur strongly avoids to take this relation! Always, vector-based-vaccines were clearly distinguished from DNA vaccines. Actually, this is senseful because not every vector-based-vaccine is a DNA-vaccine, and also, not every DNA-vaccine is vector-based! Therefore, the correct answer is: AZD1222 and Gam-COVID-Vac are vector-based and a DNA vaccine!--Max schwalbe (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. this] reference explains I guess very helpful how the astrazeneca (and similiar Sputnik) works, and shows that indeed DNA is injected into the nucleus. --Max schwalbe (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

New Covid-19 Strain (01/21/2021) May Need Newer Better Vaccine

NEWS (01/21/2021) - New South African Covid-19 Strain May Need A Better Vaccine Than That Now Available? => Business Insider - and - BioRxiv - and - The Wall Street Journal - QUESTION: Worth Noting in the Main Article? - or Not? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I restored a subsection for virus variants to COVID-19 vaccine § Efficacy. It's definitely worth building out. Can't use the preprints but perhaps can work around this and instead reference Dr. Fauci's statement and interpretation of early data... or if there are other WP:MEDRS reporting on this. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Dual flu-covid nasal vaccine in Hong Kong

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)

A vaccine protects against a virus, not a disease

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)

New WHO Vaccine Infographics

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)

Janssen Vaccine

The Janssen vaccine was not developed by Janssen Pharmaceutica in Belgium but by Janssen Vaccines (Formerly Crucell) in the Netherlands. Both are part of "Janssen pharmacautical companies of Johnson & Johnson" division — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C04:804:DA00:A8D7:DAEB:9802:6E2B (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

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. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

CoVLP

FYI, there's a draft article on DRAFT: CoVLP -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions

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)

Providence Therapeutics

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)

Order of sections

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)

Citation doesn't corroborate sentence

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)

Chumakov Center vaccine

A third vaccine is expected to be approved in Russia in February' 21 (submitted for registration on either January 19 or January 20). The vaccine is absent in the current article list of developing vaccines, I could not find any information abouth this vaccine in under development COVID-19 vaccines list on WHO website, so some notes below that may help to fill in the gaps: - Vaccine name: "Covi-Vac" / "CoviVac" (different sources offer different spelling) - type: inactivated SARS-Cov-2 - Phase I/II trials:

• /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)

EMA starts rolling review of Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine

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)

Mass vaccination is underway in Bangladesh. Please update the map.

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)

Vaccine safety

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

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)

Split article

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. Development of COVID-19 vaccines would get the current "Planning and investment" and "Development" sections, and Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines would get the "Deployment" and "Supply chain" sections; in each case a summary would be left here. This frees up space to have actual prose summary-style text about each of the vaccines in addition to the table, which should be easy since articles that have already been written about most of them. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Wikmoz: Yes, the transclusions of multiple sections are an obvious cut and I've removed all but the lead section. I agree with your other changes, but they don't add up to a lot of reduction. At 67k of readable prose, this article is just at the point where a split starts to be recommended, but despite that it discusses everything in detail but the vaccines themselves. But honestly, most of the information already here does seem encyclopedic and reasonably organized to me. I don't think we'd be able to make much more room unless we're willing to 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)

Header question

"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)

Possible error in Astra Zeneca clinical trial numbers

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).

Would benefit from discussion of game-changing British, South African, and Brazilian, and mink-farmer variants

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 vaccine

"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)

Percentage in lead

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)

Update vaccination map and possible inclusion of Economist mass coverage map

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

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)

Ukraine emergency use approval

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)

Maps for vaccine approval

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)

About the vaccine approval map

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)

Draft Articles

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)

Waive of patents

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)

Three of four cuban vaccines missing

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 WP:RS for full details. — Lentower (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Early-phase trials removed

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)

Taiwan approves AstraZeneca and Moderna

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)

Trim efficacy -> variants section?

Looks like the variants section is sourced to preprints, clinical trials, and news websites. Possible WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, and speculation issues. Thoughts on removing it? Or rewriting it to be one paragraph that summarizes what we know about vaccine efficacy against COVID variations, sourced to good MEDRS sources? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Fernando Trebien if you see them remove them. Zero tolerance to anything that isn't 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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

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)

Photo for WTO decision

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)

@GPSLeo: You should 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

The Ad5-nCoV vaccine made by CanSino Biologics was granted full use authorization by State Food and Drug Administration of China. source: [14].--ArthurLau1997 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021 (2)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

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 reliable source if appropriate. I think I know which area you are talking about. I am assuming it's the List of authorized and approved vaccines section.
However, the source doesn't say whether the vaccination has full or emergency authorisation. @193.84.115.136: If you can be clearer, I may be able to make the change. Be sure to set the |answered=yes parameter back to |answered=no
Thanks, —Belwine (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Efficacy summaries in "List of authorized and approved vaccines" not consistent?

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)

"Authorization" column in table

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 templates should not normally be used to store article text, though we've been 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)

List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations split

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

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)

Two Sinopharm vaccines

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)

Inactivated virus vaccines: add country

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

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.

References

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)