Talk:List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations/Archive 1

Switch to numbered lists?
Quick suggestion for maintainability. Maybe get rid of the totals (e.g. Emergency (36) -> Emergency), and replace the bulleted lists (*) with numbered lists (#). Then one can tell with a quick glance what the totals are, and the numbering is automatic. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That could certainly work. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I'm in favour of removing the totals. I looked for a note on the meaning of the parenthetical numbers because they don't match the lists for Pfizer or Astra Zeneca. In the Pfizer list, there's a hidden comment that the Caribbean Public Health Agency counts as 24. This only muddles things further: The Astra Zeneca list, with the Caribbean Public Health Agency and 97 other entries, has a total of 101. In both cases, readers will be left confused. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Counterfeit?
I get the impression that the Fosun vaccine is just an attempt by a Chinese company to counterfeit the Pfizer vaccine (at least within China). Is that right? If Pfizer is not overseeing the production, it cannot be the same product. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, Fosun signed a deal with BioNTech to distribute it in China .  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Fosun press releases --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Name of Pfizer-BioNTech
The vaccine is referred to Fosun-BioNTech in China, Hong Kong and Macau instead of the Phifzer-BioNTech. I myself took 2 doses of this vaccine and it clearly says the Fosun-BioNTech not Pfizer-BioNTech. I have also put reliable sources to prove that it’s a publishable source. IsaacChong1234 (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik in Thailand
The editor who deleted Sputnik is correct. I just heard on the news that 4 are approved, not including the Russian vaccine. The map needs to be corrected. JuanTamad (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Provisional authorisations are not emergency authorisations
This article falsely claims that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines were given emergency authorisations in Australia, even though the Prime Minister, Health Minister, Chief Medical Officer, and Secretary of the Department of Health have all been at pains to stress that Australia is not using emergency authorisations for COVID-19 vaccines, because there is no COVID-19 emergency in Australia.

Rather, these two vaccines have been granted provisional authorisations in Australia, which required the manufacturers to submit a lot more clinical data to the Therapeutic Goods Administration than the emergency approvals that were granted in the US, UK and EU. An emergency approval only requires data from phases 1 and 2 of the clinical trial, whereas a provisional approval requires preliminary data from phase 3, which is why Australia takes two months longer than other countries to approve COVID-19 vaccines.

To back up my claims, I quote part of an article that was published in The Guardian last week:

No Covid-19 vaccine has been given full ongoing approval by the TGA yet, because the final data from phase 3 clinical trials is still being collected and reviewed, but enough data was analysed before the available vaccines in Australia were approved to show they are safe and effective. Phase 3 trials usually involve thousands of participants and are scientifically rigorous.

It is important to note that provisional approval is different to the emergency approvals given to vaccines by the US, where the vaccines were rolled out in the absence of the amount of data Australia was able to wait for, since the situation in Australia was less urgent. “The TGA has not licensed any vaccine to date that does not have phase 3 clinical trial information,” [Prof Jim] Buttery said.

To claim that a provisional approval is simply an emergency approval is to ignore the fact that the Therapeutic Goods Administration spent a full two months poring over the phase 3 clinical data for the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines while they were being rushed out in other countries, because they wanted to reassure Australians that the vaccines really were safe and effective at a time when they were not at any real risk of catching COVID-19, and were much more likely to refuse getting vaccinated.

Please make this distinction in the article, because the current version implies that Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout was rushed, when it very clearly wasn't, and this is contributing to vaccine hesitancy at a time when we really need to persuade people to get the vaccine so we can reopen our international borders and protect ourselves from future outbreaks.
 * No two countries have the same laws. IMO this page should only list wether it's approved or not. The distinction between an EUA and a "full" authorization is not the same thing around the world. But what you are saying, that countries such as the UK, US and EU approved vaccines based on phase 1&2 trials only is not true. They waited for phase 3 results as well. Also, Switzerland claims to be the first country to do a "full" authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and it happened on December 19th, so the data was available by then. zorxd (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Moderna Vaccine in Japan
If the TAK-919 Vaccine is the same as the Moderna Vaccine, is it really necessary to have the TAK-919 in a separate map? OSSYULYYZ (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I thinks its no, but I have merged from the same vaccine by Takeda company, right here. Abrilando232 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik V in Taiwan?
If I watched that map carefully, Taiwan is also colored as "Ordered doses"? I can't believe that Tsai would need Russian vaccines in cases Taiwan is de facto a pro-AstraZeneca area. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, do you think it's correct now?
 * This map (let's call it the authorization map) started in the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine article where there's also this map (let's call it the marketing map). I initially transcribed the marketing map into the authorization map hoping to standardize this information across articles. On March 24, the marketing map said that Taiwan had approved Sputnik V, which was corrected in April. At that time, I also removed the "Ordered doses" category from the authorization map to make it more similar to the authorization maps of other vaccines. At the time, the only major country in this category was Brazil and Sputnik V was caught up in an internal dispute in the country (partially resolved recently). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Too many grays
maybe this is just placebo, but for the maps in the sections Sputnik V and Convidecia, the gray used for eligible covax recipient (as well as ema review in progress for the former), blends in with the gray that indicates no detail which makes it hard to see which of the two a specific country is. shouldn't it be a color that contrasts it? &#9678; | melecie |   t  09:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I proposed these colors some months ago. First, I thought that using named web colors would make maintenance much easier for everyone. Originally, there were only two shades of gray: one for countries in general and one for a pending WHO authorization (in fact, only for those at an advanced stage of WHO's review process). At the time, most of the world was not covered by any vaccine, so I thought it would be interesting to show that they could at least rely on COVAX. Then EMA began a review of Sputnik, which required a new color. I chose another shade of gray so as not to give the inattentive reader the impression that it was already authorized in Europe. To make the map as accessible as possible for the colorblind, I checked the color contrast converting the maps to gray by luminance in GIMP, and that was the best contrast I could get, considering that the situations in gray are less important than the ones with saturated color. I expected this to last only briefly (soon WHO or EMA would approve/reject definitely) but it is taking very long. So maybe we should eliminate the two gray levels, though it was quite informative until recently when many vaccines were under review and were eventually approved. On the other hand, when Sputnik/Convidecia are finally approved/rejected, a quick replacement in a text editor is enough, which is convenient. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a likely question asked above, because I can't believe that Russian government will act somewhat roles on helping Taiwanese vaccination works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied there. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ZF2001 authorization in Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan started administering ZF2001 vaccine to everyone of age 18 and up, please update the relevant info - thanks!

Frozen Spider (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

PakVac
Why there is know information of PakVac Haider1111321321123 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the same thing as the CanSino Vaccine. This is similar to Covishield versus Vaxzevria or Moderna versus TAK-919. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Post-expand include size is too large
The preview displays the warning Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pfizer is NOT fully approved in Canada!
With the announcement today that Pfizer is FDA approved in the USA, I would like to stress that it is NOT fully approved in Canada! The emergency use authorization remains for all age groups:
 * https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/08/23/us-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-full-approval/ (See the last two paragraphs. There is no "full approval" date in Canada, and CityNews states the the USA is first to fully approve, but Canada lacks this approval.)
 * https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/us-pfizer-fda-approval-1.6149959 (See "What does this mean for Canada?" in this CBC and AP article. Pfizer comments that there is NO full approval in Canada.)

Please promptly change the map and information to reflect that Canada maintains Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer in Canada, not full approval. The Toronto Star article, which is behind a paywall, is incorrect. It is important to present the correct information. Also, regardless of full approval, those ages 12 to 15 (and some children age 11 in Ontario) only have a EUA for Pfizer, not full approval. --LABcrabs (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the data myself. It was easier to do than I thought. --LABcrabs (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Minimum (and maximum) age for vaccinations in different countries?
For example, what is this 18-84 year restriction for tourists in San Marino based on? Probably efficacy of Sputnik V hasn't been properly tested for <18 year old, but what about safety testing? I don't think the efficacy is less for any covid vaccine if a person is younger than permitted:

https://www.visitsanmarino.com/en/contenuto/Vivi/Turismo_vaccinale.html

For Janssen = Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca it would be interesting to know the minimum age in different countries, because some countries are super-careful with very rare serious side-effects and give a minimum age of maybe even 60 years?

Pfizer is probably the vaccine that has been tested with the youngest people, I think they have tested the vaccine even for babies and pregnant women(so the newborn gets protection), but I don't know have the results been published already?

--ee1518 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Info on the authorisations for successively younger age ranges of children would be useful. It seems right now that Pfizer-BioNTech has applied for US authorisation but not yet for European (EMA) authorisation, at least per the mainstream media(TM) ... Boud (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * EMA evaluation of Pfizer/BioNTech for 5-11 years started by 18 Oct 2021 but the evaluation will not be fast, it "is expected in a couple of months". Boud (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

AstraZeneca Vaxzeveria NOT fully approved in Canada
On 2021-09-16 when Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were "fully approved" in Canada, i.e. "transitioned to the Food and Drug Regulations," AstraZeneca was not transitioned. The submission remains under review as of 2021-10-09.

I would edit the page myself but I don't want to mess up the formatting, it's above my paygrade

If the countries allowing for Covaxin for travel are going to be listed shouldn't we also do it for other vaccines that are going to be allowed for travel into a particular country even if the particular vaccine isn't being used in the country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snguberman (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcatmag (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been updated. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

TurkoVac
What's the point, all sources cleared the news 1 2 Abrilando232 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake reverting it. Sorry. And Merry Christmas. 747pilot (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

European Commission CMA
The conditional marketing authorizations (CMA) for the COVID-19 vaccines are full authorizations. See previous discussions at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#%22Emergency%22_versus_%22standard%22_authorization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#European_Commission_CMA.

For further description of the CMA see

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring#accelerated-evaluation

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2390

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Whywhenwhohow: While that may be the case, secondary sources (including the New York Times) refer to anything short of a full authorization as "emergency". That seems to be the case here. WMSR (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The EU makes decisions about its own authorizations. They use the CMA for many medicines in addition to the COVID-19 vaccines. They distinguish between the CMA and an EUA in the Q&A at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2390. The EU chair stated it was a full authorization. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * How they're referred to outside the EU doesn't matter - what matters is what they are equivalent to. The FDA doesn't have an "Approved with pre-determined review requirements" or similar - but the FDA does at times give a drug full approval with the condition that the manufacturer run specific post-marketing studies and report data to the FDA on a regular basis - this being beyond what all companies are expected to do. A conditional marketing authorization is this - it is a full authorization to market, but with specific post-marketing requirements. This is contrary to an emergency use declaration (such as an EUA in the US) which expires automatically at the end of the conditions that led to the authorization - ex: end of pandemic, full approval granted for the same population, etc. So no, it's not an "emergency" just because it's "short of full", and in fact a CMA is a full authorization which must be explicitly rescinded if it is to be no longer valid, where an EUA is rescinded with no further action at a pre-set time/condition. While newer data (or failure to follow conditions by the manufacturer) can result in the CMA being rescinded, it's not "automatic" like an emergency use would be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * European CMAs expire after a year, which would seem to fit the "rescinded with no further action at a pre-set time/condition" criterion. WMSR (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Whywhenwhohow I think your edit was premature. The only reliable secondary source I can find that differentiates between emergency and regular approvals refers to the EU's authorizations as "emergency". Do you have a secondary source that says otherwise? WMSR (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing w/ WMSR--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Associated Press wrote this "The European Union on Monday gave official approval for the coronavirus vaccine developed by BioNTech and Pfizer to be used across the 27-nation bloc, raising hopes that countries can begin administering the first shots to their citizens shortly after Christmas. ...

Switzerland on Saturday became the first country to authorize the vaccine according to the normal licensing procedure. EMA’s conditional market authorization also followed the regular process, only on an accelerated schedule and under the condition that the pharmaceutical companies submit follow-up data on their vaccine for the next year."

and this "The European Medicines Agency on Thursday gave the green light to Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose coronavirus vaccine, handing the European Union’s 27 nations a fourth vaccine to try to speed up the bloc’s much-criticized vaccination rollout. ...

The EMA has already recommended COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca — but all of those vaccines require two doses, several weeks apart. Production delays have also plagued all three vaccine manufacturers.

...

The European Commission quickly granted a conditional marketing authorization to the vaccine."

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Whywhenwhohow Those sources simply state that the EMA granted a CMA. It does not define what a CMA is. The United States FDA's EUA is not the definition of an emergency authorization, and we should not treat it as such. -- WMSR (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there even a consistent definition of "full" and "emergency" authorizations? The terms "full approval" and "emergency use authorization" are U.S. terms with specific meanings; the EU and other countries may use different terms with different meanings that don't exactly line up.  Do we even need to split the lists into subcategories?  Combining them would save us from having to pick through what terms correspond to each other internationally.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that we don't need the subcategories. It doesn't seem to provide much benefit and adds confusion. The AP stated that the CMA is a regular approval on an accelerated basis. The EMA and the EU have published multiple documents that clarify that a CMA is an accelerated regular approval. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like the UK gave regulatory approval to the Moderna vaccine. The UK calls it conditional approval.
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-moderna


 * --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Whywhenwhohow, again, the EUA is not the only thing that counts as an emergency approval. I am going by the New York Times's distinction, as they are a reliable secondary source and no one has offered any that run counter. The AP source you cited also emphasized the conditional nature of the CMA. I propose that any approval that is explicitly conditional be classified under "emergency", as the NYT does. -- WMSR (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That appears to be an arbitrary/convenient classification for the COVID vaccines. Many medicines and medical products are approved conditionally in the EU, the US, and elsewhere. That doesn't make them "emergency" products. I don't understand what you mean by "the EUA is not the only thing that counts as an emergency approval."


 * https://www.fda.gov/patients/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review/accelerated-approval


 * https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Expedited-Programs-for-Serious-Conditions-Drugs-and-Biologics.pdf


 * https://www.fda.gov/media/81792/download


 * For animals too.
 * https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/resources-you/conditional-approval-explained-resource-veterinarians


 * https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=516.29


 * --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The UK changed the approval of the Moderna vaccine from "Conditional and temporary authorization to supply" to "Conditional Approval". It was temporary (emergency) and is now conditional (not emergency).

"This medicinal product has been authorised under a so-called ‘conditional approval’ scheme. This means that further evidence on this medicinal product is awaited. New information on this medicinal product will be reviewed at least every year and this SmPC will be updated as necessary."

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Whywhenwhohow I'm more and more agreeing with @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). Perhaps it makes most sense to just list approvals and remove any distinctions altogether. That said, based on the way the article is currently laid out, I firmly maintain that European countries should be listed under "Emergency", per NYT. No source has been provided to refute their classification scheme. -- WMSR (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources from the Associated Press, the EMA, and the EU all specify otherwise.

"The vaccine has already been given some form of regulatory approval in at least 15 countries.

Britain, Canada and the U.S. authorized the vaccine to be used according to emergency provisions, meaning the shot is an unlicensed product whose temporary use is justified by the pandemic that has killed almost 1.7 million people worldwide, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.

Switzerland became the first country Saturday to authorize the vaccine according to the normal licensing procedure. EMA’s conditional market authorization also followed the regular process, only on an accelerated schedule and under the condition that the pharmaceutical companies submit follow-up data on their vaccine for the next year."


 * --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If we really want to keep two sections, perhaps we can rename the latter one something like "Emergency, conditional, or provisional". John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support this. -- WMSR (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WMSR - no source other than the authorization and agency themselves you mean? The EMA explicitly authorized it under their "regular process" - they explicitly did not issue an "emergency only" or other authorization. As I said above, it is conditional, but it is a "full" authorization with conditions - similar to authorizations in the US that fall under REMS conditions - would you say that isotretinoin isn't authorized in the US because it is subject to a REMS condition? The condition that further data be submitted is not abnormal in the course of drug approvals - it is normal and happens more often than just for COVID-19 related approvals. An authorization with conditions is much different than an emergency authorization or a temporary/provisional authorization - one is saying "this drug is approved but we'd still like more data", and the other is saying "this is temporarily approved because current data suggests it may work, but we can rescind it at any time without a full rescinding procedure". Conditions do not mean that it is not a normal authorization - and even if the agency doesn't have a method of "emergency authorization" it isn't appropriate for us to "decide" what their emergency authorization would be defined as. If something is approved through the normal process for any vaccine/medication, it's a full authorization even if done on an accelerated timeframe or with conditions. If something is approved via some alternate means, then it's an "emergency" or "provisional" authorization. We can and should not define things approved through normal regulatory means, regardless of timeframe or conditions, as "emergency" because that's not how those agencies chose to define it - and that's what we go by, because per WP:PRIMARY we should use primary sources when available to identify the opinions/statements of an official agency/organization - which is exactly what this is - defining the authorization type is repeating what the agency/organization themselves decided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is another source stating that the vaccine is approved in the EU. "... while EMA and the European Commission approved the vaccine for individuals older than 16 years that reside in any of the 27 state members of the EU on December 21"

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The vaccines are authorized in the EU and the authorizations were renewed. Other countries listed under "full" have similar conditional authorizations. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote "The bloc formally approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Monday, setting off a logistical marathon the likes of which most of the authorities in the region have not had to contend with before. ...

The European Medicines Agency, the bloc’s drug authority, gave its approval on Monday, after coming under intense scrutiny for the pace at which it reviewed the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine." --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"What is the difference between a WHO recommendation and an EU marketing authorisation?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has made recommendations for an emergency use listing (EUL) for some COVID-19 vaccines. These are not marketing authorisations, but are designed to support temporary availability and use in emergency situations.

Each WHO Member State can allow the emergency use of a product under an EUL in their country.

However, in the EU, WHO recommendations for EUL cannot replace the centralised authorisation procedure involving a scientific evaluation by EMA.

An EU marketing authorisation offers a robust post-authorisation regulatory framework based on legally binding obligations, safeguards and controls."

You wrote in your edit summary that A conditional marketing authorisation is equivalent to an EUA. but that is incorrect. Many medicines in the US, the EU, and Australia have conditional authorizations or the equivalent. They are not emergency authorizations. They are authorizations that require followup and additional studies. The article lists vaccines as having full approval in Switzerland for example, but those are conditional authorizations as well. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Vacunas Cuba
Soberana 01 y Mambisa no son mencionadas en la descripción 2A02:1811:340F:8000:216A:61D5:E52C:52AE (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maps Need Update
Do not match captions or text. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Allowed for travel category
Many countries do not have have any  vaccine requirements for entry, so it seems silly to have "Allowed for travel" as a category for each vaccine. Are we okay with removing that subheader and category on maps? WMSR (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would keep them since they are a legal category of (limited) authorization in the counties that have them. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would keep them as well as it is important information and as John says it shows that it is a category of authorization. :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Allowed for travel needs footnote. Which direction of travel? entry or exit? ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx Entry, obviously. Drsruli (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Moderna Omicron Booster
The UK has approved the new Moderna Omicron booster. Since this is is a second generation vaccine, and many other countries are likely to approve it very soon, should this get a new section? Especially since this applies to other vaccines e.g. Sputnik and Sputnik Light being listed seperately. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they should be separately listed. It might be best to keep different versions from the same manufacturer together by making them subsections of a single section, but there are pros and cons to that.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It would be appropriate to list them separately. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)