Talk:Operation Warp Speed

The table of companies funded includes approval dates for some vaccines, but not for Novavax, which was initially approved in July 2022, and updated in October 2023: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologics/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-adjuvanted#:~:text=On%20October%203%2C%202023%2C%20the,include%20the%202023%2D2024%20formula.

Can we start a list of the chosen operation warp speed companies be added to this wiki?
Can we start a list of the chosen operation warp speed companies be added to this wiki? [IP unsigned, July 2020]

✅ - Zefr (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Can it display as a table? Some companies have already received funds for development, while other companies are left to their own devices to invent the vaccine and have only been promised funds for manufacturing and distribution. It might be informative to have a table displaying each company's funding status, amount, purpose, timeline, etc. The companies are not being treated as equal partners. They each have their own contract. For comparison, there is a table in the Wiki article COVID-19 vaccine that takes a global perspective. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A table would be helpful. Please proceed. Zefr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. ✅ I made a table. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it me, or is this perhaps somewhat unwanted: the references for most of the companies mentioned in the list, point to a single source (#17) which talks primarily about a single company? Okay, the other companies do get mentioned at the end in the source, but wouldn't it be appropriate to use a more neutral source if it's being used for several companies? 213.127.71.119 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A few minutes ago, I made a table. As part of that update, I found better sources. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Star Trek
There is no mention of Star Trek or what the fictional warp drive means. Do other editors believe the meaning will be apparent to nearly all readers with a sufficient grasp of English to read the article? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont think Starfleet are very happy about the donald tainting them by association, as Starfleet works for the benifit of all man specieskind. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article does not explain the name of Operation Warp Speed with a single line. That's quite a deficit in my opinion. --24.250.23.95 (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ (see also below). -- HLachman (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aborted fetal cells
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-ethical-issues Charles Juvon (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sept 2020: what companies are funded?
If HHS and OWS do not say that a company is being funded, then they are NOT funded. Mcdonalds is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Wal-Mart is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Your claim of lack of transparency is not fitting here. The companies receiving funding is transparent. Until this. gov site says they are funded, they are not https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html it does not matter what Vaxart says, or what CNN says vaxart says, or yahoo finance says what vaxart says. HHS.GOV says who is funded. [IP unsigned, September 2020]


 * There is a general absence of transparency from OWS on what companies are being funded. In the article, we have reliable WP:RS sources saying that Vaxart and Inovio are part of OWS for preclinical and manufacturing support, while most of the attention is on major company contracts for expensive Phase III trials and the first stages of manufacturing to have a ready stockpile if a vaccine candidate proves to be effective and safe. There seem to be varied opinions on what companies are funded, so let's work it out here. This version is correct, in my opinion. Zefr (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism
I think the criticisms of involved companies who tout their OWS involvement should be mentioned, but I am not wedded to having it in the Criticism section. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Objectively - if viewed from the government or administrators of OWS - this section is not related to the award of OWS funds or the science of involved companies. Rather, it impresses as non-neutral cherrypicking (multinational pharmas of OWS might be readily criticized on various factors), and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Bottom line: it is WP:OFFTOPIC for the OWS program itself. Zefr (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I will bow to whatever consensus develops. (Hopefully others will chime in!) I appreciate your work on this article Zefr. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Markworthen and Zefr. Criticism of companies involved in the project doesn't belong in that section. We should also mention the successful development of Covid vaccine within the proposed timeframe by Pfizer/BioNTech. Prav001 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pfizer-BioNTech involvement
OWS is more than R&D investment in developing a company's vaccine candidate. The Pfizer-BioNTech partnership has accrued at least four benefits from OWS: 1) expedited FDA review and approval to begin the Phase III trial in the USA in April; 2) 155 clinical trial centers across the country, partially coordinated with FDA assistance and ongoing regulatory oversight; 3) a $2 B commitment by the US government to purchase the Pfizer vaccine, if proven safe and effective; 4) expedited FDA review of trial results and Emergency Use Authorization (conducted by the FDA), if further results of the trial are positive. In other words, the OWS national infrastructure is aiding the Pfizer-BioNTech candidate onto the US market much faster than a successful vaccine normally would pass through clinical trial scrutiny and FDA review and approval. Success in the USA will enable approval and sales for Pfizer in other countries, such as Canada. Pfizer has been mentioned as a part of OWS since the first announcement. Every vaccine expert agrees that assessment and potential approval of a vaccine in the USA and other countries is the fastest process for a vaccine in history. Approve of the US administration or not, the OWS infrastructure is enabling the rapid testing, review, and licensing process for a safe and effective vaccine. Zefr (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that there has been edit warring over whether to list Pfizer in the list of companies participating. The situation is explained pretty well in the text below the list, but listing it under participating companies is controversial. I suggest adding a footnote to the company listing, like this:
 * Pfizer-BioNTech
 * Notes
 * References
 * References


 * What do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair resolution, imo. Zefr (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you MelanieN. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's moot now, because someone has reorganized the list of companies according to their relationship with OWS. That's an improvement IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I know that it's not usable, but I'll record here that the Phase I and Phase II testing for Pfizer was definitely conducted with benefit from Operation Warp Speed, as some of that testing was done here at NYU-Langone Vaccine Center, which was an Operation Warp Speed facility. Drsruli (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Pres. Trump Announcement?
On Fri. 2020-11-13, Pres. Trump, Moncef Slaoui, and Gen. Perna all gave a press briefing that was televised in which they announced a lot of details about the project's progress. I'm surprised that I don't see the information here, and yet there have been dozens of other edits since then. Was there no text-based source for this conference, or did all of the written media services boycott it? --Eliyahu S Talk 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing encyclopedic was revealed. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Advocate for explaining the Star Trek reference
It is obviously noteworthy that Warp Speed is a reference to Star Trek and the Warp drive used in science fiction. The article does not mention where this name comes from even though it is rooted in popular culture. The article does not mention the origin of "Warp Speed" with a single line. --24.250.23.95 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ (see also above). -- HLachman (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

OWS summary in COVID-19 vaccine
There is a brief and outdated summary of OWS in, which mentions $4.5 billion in spending but appears woefully out of date given more recent accounts of $11 billion and $18 billion. Hoping an editor familiar with OWS can help update/expand the program summary in that topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Cost" section
I would presume that a "cost" section for WWII would actually tell me how much WWII actually cost. In dollars. JohndanR (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

✅ I added this paragraph, recognizing that there seems to be cost data only through mid-December. There was vague news in late January that the Biden administration is going to change the name from OWS to something less "speedy", but obviously there are still OWS programs and costs underway, such as clinical trial support and pre-approval manufacturing for OWS recipients, like J&J and Novavax, i.e., there are ongoing costs yet to be revealed in 2021. Zefr (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnson & Johnson pause
The table correctly notes that there was a pause for the AstraZeneca vaccine due to worries about blood clotting. A reader contacted Wikimedia to note that there was also a pause for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine but this is not mentioned. I think there should be.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
In the "Companies receiving research funding" section within the table, the notes for "Merck and IAVI" should read

two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 2021

the 1 is missing at the end of 2021 in the sentence which currently reads

two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 202 James05345 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

✅ Be bold and edit such an error yourself. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor editing and style issues
Under the Timeline section, in the final sentence spell out “admin” for consistency and clarity. Dakamine (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022
Add the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph under the "Distribution" sub-heading: As of January 31, 2021, 63.7 million doses had been delivered pursuant to Operation Warp Speed, of a total of 200 million doses that Pfizer and Moderna were contractually obligated to provide by the end of March 2021. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 2601:147:C200:310:4088:463B:8C70:AF58 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)William Bell wumhenry@gmail.com

✅, with some editing. Zefr (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

INOVIO and Vaxart
What does this have to do with Operation Warp Speed? (These companies are not listed as having received OWS benefits.) Drsruli (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden/ warpspeed
Joe Biden does not get credit for operation warpspeed. Why are you posting this lie? 108.18.209.172 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

“If proven safe and effective” needs source
Bloomberg
 * The project will cost billions of dollars, one of the people said. And it will almost certainly result in significant waste by making inoculations at scale before knowing if they’ll be safe and effective -- meaning that vaccines that fail will be useless. But it could mean having doses of vaccine available for the American public by the end of this year, instead of by next summer.

Wikipedia:
 * The program promoted mass production of multiple vaccines, and different types of vaccine technologies, based on preliminary evidence, allowing for faster distribution if clinical trials confirm one of the vaccines is safe and effective. The plan anticipated that some of these vaccines will not prove safe or effective, making the program more costly than typical…”

Nowhere in the source material does it state, as WP does, that distribution depended on proof of “safe and effective”, this seems to be a case of editorializing by the editors.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph lacks the words "Safe and Effective"
Are we not saying this anymore or something? 222.108.156.194 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See above topic. WhoAteMyButter  (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 00:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)