Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 2

Denmark's withdrawal
The text in the article is incorrect and may be corrected. The real reason for the withdrawal as actually mentioned in the citation is The Danish Health Authority said studies had shown a higher than expected frequency of blood clots following doses, affecting about one in 40,000 people. Escrte (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a dispute tag but (minor point) a more precise and less vague identification of the disputed text and associated citation would be slightly more helpful to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Australia's Authorization
The information about the Australian authorization is false. Australia did not issue an emergency authorization and authorized it through a normal process.

Incorrect Authorization and eligibility by country map
The Authorization and eligibility by country map in the Approvals section is incorrect, since it displays EU and EFTA countries (excluding Switzerland) colored in blue, therefore incorrectly indicating that an Emergency Use Authorization has been issued. All of the EU member states, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein should thus be colored in purple, as to correctly reflect the state of the vaccine's authorization in those countries (Conditional Marketing Authorization). Lorenzo Diana (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I seriously wonder if this map is sustainable at a required level of accuracy. I doubt if enough volunteers would commit to maintaining it.  See also .Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove map
I propose and intend to remove the map in a few days unless someone/people volunteer to maintain it. Its actually quite tricky to maintain and I douby few who are capable of maintaining it would volunteer to do so. Because it is quite dynamic it is likely to be left in an inaccurate state. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You should sync it with List of COVID-19 vaccine authorizations which is usually more up to date, but it is possible that some edits were made in this article and other edits were made in the other article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After comparing the two maps using a text comparison tool, it was clear that the map here was out of date and unmaintained, so I replaced it with the updated map using section transclusion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Excellent idea ... attempting to maintain this is two places is double crazy! My only issue with it is I did not think of it myself! Sorted.  ✅ Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The vaccine is responsible for deaths.
The vaccine is responsible for rare but severe blood clotting and even reaponsible for deaths. I request administrators to add this information by maintaining Wikipedia's policies. Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already covered with a proper WP:TONE and high-quality WP:MEDRS sources. Please do not insert sensational wording and stacks of unreliable sources, as it comes over as scare mongering. Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection against the Indian (B.1.617) variant
Wanted to add to a "New variant efficacy" subsection: "In April 2021, a study by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad found Covishield vaccinated sera offers protection against the Indian (B.1.617) variant." Sources based of a tweet from Anurag Agrawal, Director, IGIB; and Dr. Rakesh Mishra, Director, CCMB:        Even if the sources are not medical journals, the article does quote other 'regular' newspapers, and all quote the same tweets from medical professionals. Please aid with the source. YBSOne (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Said Rakesh Mishra tweet was from 22 April. YBSOne (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And Anurag Agrawal tweet from 27 April. YBSOne (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My problem is the sources are not WP:MEDRS and not peer reviewed, and I would not expect WHO to word it that way. To a degree (without looking at a particular article) the study, which I assume good faith is good, is likely confirming either the somewhat expected efficacy of Covishield against B.1.617 and/or the effectiveness against serious harm/death following vaccination.  Its best to let WHO determine what they will make of these studies; and if they are convinvced they can say with reasonable certainty Covishield/AZD1222 is effective against B.1.617 they will likely do so.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More sources on the topic: dw.com biospace.com nature.com medpagetoday.com YBSOne (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How is this section sorted?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine#Supply_timeline

It seems to be randomly sorted, I suggest sorting by timeline. --Greatder (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @: That subsection has various totality inaccuracy issues and may be becoming WP:UNDUE.  As far as I can tell the prose in tha section is essentially in order, if you are referring to the table, and it is unclear to me if this is the part which is the problem, ( and it has the most severity issues), issues the obvious answer would be to make it sortable, but that does not solve the table's other issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Astrazeneca Propaganda
It would be good to have third party sources here and not make this entire article a Astrazeneca advocacy piece. Looks a bit ridiculous - borderline North Korean. Huasteca (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has over 200 references, only a handful of which are to AstraZeneca material, and for mundane claims so far as I can see. Alexbrn (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The section on blood clots in both the summary and under "suspensions" almost entirely mirrors the British propaganda getting pushed heavily on social media and other platforms the past few days. This wikipedia article barely mentions that the concern is actually extremely rare types of blood clotting (low platelet levels and/or CVST), and accepts the inappropriate categorization of the reactions as generic blood clots. However, the resulting emphasis on the expected prevalence rate of normal blood clots from various entities is completely irrelevant and highly misleading.


 * Since the correct data is publicly available with very little effort, the persistence in ignoring the relevance of the subtype of the clots from people who should know better is highly suggestive of deliberate propaganda. But perhaps if too many external sources are nonsense, Wikipedia is helpless to exclude it and must pretend that that nonsense is factual, relevant, and authoritative. 86.83.81.68 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sound like conspiracism to me. Sources for "British propaganda" would be required, and WP:MEDRS for any medical content. Wikipedia needs to be careful not to reflect misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to add any content you want, but please remember to adhere to WP:MEDRS. Content that didn't follow the guidelines may be removed. SunDawn (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn Literally all of the sources related to health concerns are Astrazeneca or British government sources. There is a very clear bias in this article. It seems systemic and deliberate to not just me. Huasteca (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Literally, incorrect. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Erm... Currently there is only one source on the Safety Profile section and its from the British government. A little bit rich to respond so laconically.  Huasteca (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And the section above about suspensions has other sources. In any event, the MHRA is that kind of source that Wikipedia prefers, since is is a strong WP:MEDRS, and strong WP:RS. Your assertionss, without evidence, that it is somehow untrustworthy are not useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "AstraZeneca propaganda" and "British propaganda" are not going to get anything or anyone anywhere. The page has tons of sources, very few of which are published by AstraZeneca. Moreover, there is no viable reason to doubt the validity of the statements of the British health authorities, who have a history of reliable publications and are among the institutions with the most experience in applying the vaccine. If you have a source, that meets the criteria of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, which states the opposite, I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. However, the accusation you levy, as it stands at the moment, is entirely unfounded and dare I say completely ridiculous. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Goodposts Frankly there is every reason to doubt the validity of British sources who are stridently defending "their" vaccine both for diplomatic and public health reasons - a scare would jeopardize their vaccination drive. British press is simply engaging in histrionic nationalistic chest-beating. We now know the mechanism whereby this thrombosis occurs with Astrazeneca - a condition known as Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT). So far there have been 9 deaths in Germany alone related to this vaccines - all of them in women under 65 so we know the profile at risk. None of this is reflected in the article. As it now stands it is propaganda and whitewashing. Now that both Canada and Germany have completeley suspended use of this vaccine it is time for an overhaul of this article. Huasteca (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been tens of millions of people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. As the EMA noted, around 100,000 people get various forms of blood clots in the EU naturally each month. The current scientifically-estimated risk for blood clots following the AstraZeneca jab is 20/30,000,000. Those numbers are astronomically low and rely on the assumption that there is a causal link between all of those cases and the vaccine. Scientific literature points to various immune system reactions, which, while may be triggered by the vaccine, are not necessarily its fault. A similar and in fact worse reaction is likely to take place in those same people, should the person in question be exposed to COVID-19, a virus that is proven to increase the risk of blood clots among other undesirable cardiovascular events. The article, as it is written, currently explains this and notes that the remote risk of such a reaction has nevertheless now been included in the product's information sheet. Moreover, there is no proven statistically significant increase in the number of thrombosis-related events in the vaccinated population as compared to the general population. A lot of the information on the page concerning the possibility of thrombosis cites primarily the EMA, not British sources. As you are probably well aware, the UK left the EU quite recently, and the EU has no claim of ownership over the AstraZeneca formulation. Even when referring to British sources - polemics on the talk page aren't enough. Do you have concrete, reputable, reliable sources that meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS and credibly dispute the findings of the British medical authorities, the University of Oxford, etc, that have thus far had a very long and excellent track record regarding their accuracy? Without such sources, you will not be able to substantiate your claims, and your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Goodposts (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I mean by propaganda: Playing around with numbers to come up with ludicrous conclusions among some journos like Astrazeneca REDUCING your risk of blood clots or throwing figures like "20/30,000,000 risk". This can only fool uneducated people. How many women under the age of 65 have been vaccinated with Astazeneca in Germany? Find the figure because I suspect its less than 200,000. So far 9 women in that age bracket have died from blood clots caused by the jab in Germany which is why the country has suspended the administration of the vaccine today. There is no lack of sources, as you well know if you google "Astrazeneca" and set the filter for the last 24 hours. As I said, enough nonsense already. We need to reflect scientific findings. https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550 Huasteca (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All that need be done here is to follow WP:MEDRS. The EMA is one such. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * EMA have a safety concern issued on the blood clot issue and are scrutinising it carefully. If my memory servers me well, and it may not, I think that had planned to issue an update on Thursday (1 April 2021). but I am very far from certain of that fact.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huge citation needed for "Playing around with numbers to come up with ludicrous conclusions". Wikipedians' suspicions are not enough to change encyclopaedic content, it has to be cited. In this case, according to the very strict MEDRS standards. Fun fact - I actually had included the base story behind that very same article a few revisions ago, purely as a statement by the researchers and not a medical fact, and some Wikipedians objected even to that. Upon reflection, I actually agreed with them, and did not object to the removal of said content, as in the end of the day it's actually very barebones from a medical point of view and is published by a popular media organization (though one that would usually meet the requirements of RS in a non-medical page), not a scientific journal. Your last statement, however, I can agree with - "We need to reflect scientific findings". I'm on board with that 100% - that's why we have the strict MEDRS standard. So, if you have any sources that meet that standard, you're absolutely welcome to include them in the article. Arguing with other wikipedians on the talk page about your 'suspicions', however, is not grounds for the removal of cited MEDRS content, nor goes any way to prove any inaccuracy in the presently provided sources or the publications behind them. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "...suspicions are not enough to change encyclopaedic content" While it is true, the 'suspicion' should be investigated. I am about to go to the hospital visiting my mother-in-law who had a blood-cloth removed from her brain during the night - she is 92. The issue is, nobody asked or talked about her receiving the monkey-jab 20 days ago. The ambulance didn't ask, the triage nurse didn't ask, the doctors didn't ask and her son and two daughters never mentioned it. I had to tell them. IE: the data available is most likely tainted. Here, in Australia, the government and the media is desperately downplaying the danger. Please remember: "NOTHING but NOTHING can live in the acidic environment of the stomach". Hundreds of millions of doctors worldwide NEW that FACT for sure sure and ridiculed Barry Marshall.

Stat on the blood clot
I've looked into the source #36 and it indicates, under Known benefits and risk of Vaxzevria: "The most serious side effects are very rare cases of unusual blood clots with low blood platelets, which are estimated to occur in 1 in 100,000 vaccinated people. People should seek medical assistance if they have symptoms." There's a pretty big typo, the wikipedia article says under adverse effect "less than 1 in 10,000 people" where it should be "1 in 100,000" people. Alexis.Med (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 Fixed. Good catch! (This typo seems to have originated here a few weeks ago.) Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a typo. It was referenced in several parts of the article purposefully as that is what the EMA reports. Basically: "around 1 in 100,000" IS "less than 1 in 10,000". It seems the EMA's definition of "very rare" is "less than 1 in 10,000" and it is as low it goes in terms of side effects. Frequencies are defined as: very common (≥ 1/10); common (≥ 1/100 to < 1/10); uncommon (≥ 1/1,000 to < 1/100); rare (≥ 1/10,000 to < 1/1,000); very rare (< 1/10,000). They don't have an "extremely rare" definition :-) Since the actual occurrence is more precisely around 1 in 100.000 cases and that is basically an entire order of magnitude lower I have edited the article accordingly . This tells people how rare this side effect actually is! No wonder it was discovered so late... -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bill gates influence on patent decision
Shouldn't this be included: ? PJ Geest (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems interesting, but it's also a major claim. Can we get some additional RS to corroborate? Goodposts (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Heat shock proteins in lede
Why are heat shock proteins mentioned in the lede? It's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. One can't cram every insignificant finding from a paper into the lede. Someone should expand it, explain its significance and relate it to the rest of the content. 202.8.114.154 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone edit the page to show that Romania is full authorization? We don't have any restrictions on it.
Article that is cited as "source" only says that the one specific batch was stopped, not all of them.

This article needs to be edited too:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_COVID-19_vaccine_authorizations#Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca

Also, if Romania is under the wrong authorization type then probably other countries too.

Here's English proof that there are no restrictions in Romania of AZ vaccine: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/open-slots-for-astrazeneca-jab-on-the-rise-in-romania/

I'd edit it myself but I don't know how to do it. 2A02:2F01:5803:8C00:AD90:1F13:5DAB:535F (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Cantread — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:5803:8C00:AD90:1F13:5DAB:535F (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Source in the Efficacy and Effectiveness section
Hello, I noticed that source number 36 used for the data in the table in the Efficacy and Effectiveness section does not specifically analyse the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine - in fact it the vaccine is not even mentioned anywhere in the source. It is an analysis of the effectiveness against variants of all vaccines in use in the United Kingdom combined, which includes Pfizer-BionTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen). Could we please remove this incorrect information? ApprehensiveBat39 (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. That reference pointed to two other preliminary results that had statistics specifically for this vaccine, so I corrected the table. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Do not move. Per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Since there is no possibility that this request will succeed, it should be closed. TFD (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC) TFD (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine → AZD1222 – Per WP:MEDTITLE, AZD1222 should be the official medical name for the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as the official website stats. Another option would be moving the present name to Vaxzevria as the statement and source from EMA official website and Government of Ireland website (Sorry for disregarding Indian people, which calls their vaccine Covishield). 182.1.26.107 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The fact remains that some countries have approved Vaxzevria but not Covishield. Also Covishield is made by the Serum Institute of India in partnership with AstraZeneca, so one cannot say that it is not the same vaccine although there are apparently a few manufacturing differences. Biologically it is the same product. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, Covishield is a WHO approved vaccine and a major contributor to COVAX; see WHO lists two additional COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use and COVAX roll-out–WHO and people inoculated with this version are allowed in many EU member states. See Covishield and Covaxin: List of European countries which recognise these Covid-19 vaccines–Hindustan Times, Covishield: Seven EU countries approve India's Covid vaccines–BBC News. Thus, both Vaxzevria and Covishield weigh same. Its useless to start controversy on tradenames. Run n Fly (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common-name.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would not be clear to most readers. --Bduke (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:MEDTITLE. AZD1222 should be preferred name to mediate someone who dispute Covishield and Vaxzevria vaccine names, despite biologically are same product. 116.206.35.30 (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This IP is located in the same place as the one who started the RM.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * WP:MEDTITLE says Most biologics, including vaccines, do not have INN or other generic names, so the brand name is used instead.. Thus WP:COMMONNAME precedes WP:MEDTITLE as it has multiple brand-name. Also, according to WP:MOSAT, which specifically mentions conventions for medicine: This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. There are no such benefits here rather than creating confusion among readers. Thus, keep Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine Run n Fly (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * for help Run n Fly (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly as per WP:COMMONNAME and Run n Fly GoodCrossing (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly as per WP:COMMONNAME -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment, per WP:COMMONNAME. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly as per WP:COMMONNAME. Abrilando232 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Run n Fly, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY - someone arriving at the current title wanting to read about the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and Astrazenica will know instantly this is the article they were looking for, someone arriving at AZD1222 will not that and is more likely to be confused or even suspect they've arrived at the wrong article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which is clearly the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf. As someone who would feasibly visit this article to learn more about it, I would be incredibly confused if it was under the proposed name. The scientific name redirect should still exist though, no doubt about that. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Run n Fly, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

New page for Manufacturing
I am in the process of preparing an edit to the Manufacturing section. I think this would be substantial however, using published papers from the University of Oxford team detailing the manufacturing process as well as other sources about the scale up process and how the work was financed (for example - https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/the-oxford-miracle-making-enough-covid-19-vaccine-to-supply-the-world ). Should I request this by editing this page and suggesting a new main article is made, or just make a new page? Iona Tarbet (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Vector DNA Sequence
This DNA vaccine has apparently been reverse engineered and its complete DNA sequence is publicly available (link: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-799338/v1). Sequence information is relevant, necessary in my opinion, because it allows for researchers to evaluate the vaccine design independently and, e.g., develop sensitive assays to analyze its pharmacology after administration (like here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2329050121001595). I think this deserves a mentioning in the Pharmacology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.18.129 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Deaths linked to the AZ vaccines
Let me be crystal clear from the start: Vaccines are the best thing that has ever happened to mankind. that said, i am bit surprised that this article does not mention that blood clots/platelet loss caused by AZ has been lead to several deaths in several countries. The german Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, a federal agency to monitor drug and vaccine safety, has now causally linked 24 deaths to this vaccine (link: https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-bis-30-06-21.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5, table 5). For comparison: All other vaccines combined have been linked to zero deaths in Germany in 2018. The german Wikipedia has a number of additional sources on this matter. Rka001 (talk)
 * Maybe you could add the info about the deaths to the article? X-Editor (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Blood clots are mentioned in "Adverse effects" and the section on EU approval mentions that 2 people died. It would be helpful to know the incidence of death. If you mention the number of deaths, you should mention the number of vaccinations. TFD (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Efficacy rates don't match
The efficacy rates in the lede and the article don't match each other. If the data is from different sources, all the sources should be provided to avoid conflicting information. 202.8.114.83 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Attempts To Undermine/Damage AZ Vaccine Reputation
We are starting to see articles published by reputable newspapers stating that France and the EU attempted to cause reputational damage to the Astrazeneca vaccine for geopolitical reasons. With this in mind, I think we need to add a new category describing these attempts. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Does a opinion piece beyond a paywall really meets the standards for a source? Especially considering that the telegraph is one of the main drivers of the nationalistic frenzy surrounding the vaccine that emerged in the UK? 2A01:C22:7765:2400:B058:A30B:4F9D:D0F1 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This information is included in the first paragraph of section 7 (Society and culture), but it is presented in a very biased manner. In short, it blames the EU for all the problems that the AstraZeneca vaccine has faced. Other sources provide a more nuanced opinion/point of view, such as this one: . This article points out the low blows of the EU towards AZ but also highlights the failures of the company itself that ultimately led to the rejection of AZ vaccine in some countries (for example, the errors made by AZ during the initial publication of the results of clinical trials). Furthermore, the court's initial ruling in the EU vs. AZ row said that "... AstraZeneca may have committed a serious breach of the contract by reserving Oxford BioMedica's output for the British market." . The row between AZ and the EU has also been settled in September 2021 . I believe that including these sources in section 7 would make the text more balanced. 2A02:8308:A085:D00:59D8:7CB5:BFA8:7884 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * O would think that the heavy lift of this vaccine in terms of numbers vaccinated in the CoVax scheme is more notable that some of the specific in the current lede. In the end mRNA are likely to be the way to go but currently cost/risk/benefit of AZ for most people is very good.  Its a while since I visited this article and it hasn't really "grown up" and there remains systemic bias in the article towards it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Age
In April 2021 UK regulators stated people under 30 should look for alternative link: https://www.businessinsider.com/under-30s-shouldnt-take-astrazeneca-vaccine-uk-regulator-2021-4

However since then no information has been found regarding if they reversed or not Astrazeneca official website does not mention this issue but the european label says "18 and above" https://covid19.astrazeneca.com/ https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-product-information_en.pdf

Protocol in Australia is confusing1ozieje (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: In Canada latest recommendation is Astrazeneca for people 18 and above link https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines-en.pdf 1ozieje (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Effectiveness against symptomatic disease by Omicron: undue weight?
In, information about a drop in effectiveness against Omicron was removed because the argument was considered unbalanced with respect to likely improved effectiveness against poor outcomes like hospitalization. To me, it is unquestionable that getting vaccinated, even without a booster shot, is likely to offer protection against hospitalization, but we don't have a report on the exact level of protection yet. We could, for example, cite the WHO update from 28 November which broadly states that Current vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @: It needs something like that to broadly give the balance; and the raw figures suggest AZ is of little value against Omicron; in practice it probably has some considerable effectiveness in reducing disease severity. ( I'm in the UK, we are in a significant Omicron wave and the data is being gathered about omicron infections and effectiveness vs. vaccination status ... )  So yes, I would accept that entry with that balancing comment, albeit a little vague until better information of the various effectiveness metrics come through, which will by its nature take a little time.23:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Compensation payments
In the UK as at 24 June 2022, according to the BMJ, BBC and other reliable sources, the first compensation payments in the UK have been made to families who have been bereaved, or to people who have been injured, as a result of Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. As of 20 May 2022 1,681 claims on the UK compensation scheme are outstanding so this is going to be more and more newsworthy. Yet I see no mention of compensation payments. Should there not be a section for it?86.187.234.95 (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Just bad
It's widely known (as of Oct 2022) that covid vaccination does *NOT* prevent infection. The definition of 'effective' is squishy, but using the manufacturer's definition (found in some particular clinical trial or approval application) is not very useful. I read, a year or so ago, that the Oxford-AZ vaccine was less effective than the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA's at preventing DEATH. That's a pretty important end-point. But I don't know if the current data supports that. It is just bad editing to avoid discussion of the various things a vaccine might or should do: infection, symptoms, length of infection, severity of infection, long-term effects, hospitalization, permanent disability (including "long covid"), and death, as well as transmission. So, a thorough article would discuss what is known about ALL of these, while this article avoids discussion of most of them - restricting discussion to the results of clinical trials and mild-moderate disease. Just bad.174.130.71.156 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This vaccine was banned in Australia as of March 22, 2023 due to TTS: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-for-providers/clinical-guidance/tts#astrazeneca-is-no-longer-available-in-australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.134.255 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)