Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 3

Recent edits adding the results of phase three trials reverted
In this diff you revert well-sourced content providing updates on the vaccine trial, arguing its content needs to be discussed here beforehand. What is your objection precisely? Mottezen (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This diff - may I ask you a source of information that the third phase has been completed? And where are the results of that phase? --Renat (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As said above, it was not all of it, but I felt it best to make a case here for all of it.
 * I am not sure we should parrot Russian government statements. Nor should we take a source that says "the Russian institute said this week in a press release" but put the statement in our voice, rather than attribute it to the Russian institute.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to 16:52, 17 December 2020‎ Slatersteven undid revision 994802188 by 176.59.0.208. I think a case needs to be made at talk, not sure about much of this. We are reinstating our earlier revision 994802188. All the changes we made were in line with WP:MEDRS citing reliable sources that are listed as “core” (The Lancet, Nature, Science). “Not sure about much of this” is not a good enough reason to remove our work unless you specify what is that that you think is inaccurate and why specifically it needs to go. If the data is good enough to be in leading science magazines it must be good enough for Wikipedia. The article in its current form lacks crucial up-to-date information and really needs more balance, in particular when it comes to Phases I-III clinical trials, public perception and existing pipeline. Citing scientific publications of record is the way to fix that.188.65.244.11 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor should we take a source that says "the Russian institute said this week in a press release" but put the statement in our voice, rather than attribute it to the Russian institute. Nor is this the only instance where this is done, if a source attributes a claim, so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that in one place it is written that the results of the 3rd phase are only "interim". One other source says only "results" without clarification. So I support Slatersteven. At the end, we have WP:NO DEADLINE, so no need to rush. Wait until final results of Phase 3 are published in some decent source, not press release. Even the Sputnik's own website says they are only preparing a publication. Only preparing. Additional question: 188.65.244.11 = 176.59.0.208? --Renat (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To your questions, you can find multiple sources to the completion of phase III trials and the results and methodology of another phase III trial, which was published after you made your statements in an earlier thread. Are there any sources listed in the diff that you object to? Mottezen (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also add that the article for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine does not have such stringent restrictions on the use of press releases to source the phase III trial results and that they are currently sourced exclusively with press articles there. On the contrary, WP:The deadline is now. Mass-vaccination is currently underway for every Russian citizen over 60 years old, which is why it is crucial to have the most up-to-date and accurate information here. Mottezen (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point on attribution. Mottezen (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The press releases from the Gamaleya Institute clearly state the analyses are "interim" and therefore not final. We should be careful (and skeptical) about Russian government sources which have previously been regarded by experts as exaggerated and unreliable. Concerning the Phase III trial started in August: it is not scientifically possible for a Phase III trial on a previously-untested vaccine to be completed in under 4 months. We should wait for the expert-reviewed publication in a Western medical journal of actual final results from the trial - proving efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity - after which the vaccine may be eligible for licensure. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but please take a look at official Sputnik press release (14 December 2020): link. It says "The research data will be published by the Gamaleya Center team in one of the leading international peer-reviewed medical journals." So we just need to wait until this data will be published in one of the leading international peer-reviewed medical journal. Or is it published already? For now, all sites are just copy pasting this press release. We cannot sacrifice the quality of sources in the pursuit of expanding an article. Also, I don't see how Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article is different from this one.--Renat (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (diff) WP:NOTNEWS? I also think that the sentence "The phase III trial for Gam-COVID-Vac was registered on 28 August 2020, and its status was updated to "recruiting" on 10 September." is more important than "In December 2020,  the Gamaleya Institute published preliminary data on 22,714 participants of its phase III trials". So I'm not sure why you deleted it. The number of participants is subject to change, but the registration date is not.--Renat (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced the status link from crinicaltrials.com because it has not been updated since October. 11 days after the beginning of mass-vaccination, they are well-passed the recruitment stage. The most accurate up-to-date information on the phase III trials is the release of preliminary data of the trials after 21 days of injection. Yes, the number of participants will change, but the number of participants from which data was released four days ago will not. Mottezen (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "will be" is not "has been". Its not yet been published in an RS, when it is then we can use it (possibly, as we will also need to see how the RS treats it).Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So why are CNBC and New York Times quoted for the preliminary results of Phase III trials, "indicating 94% efficacy" of the Moderna vaccine, before any peer results are published in a medical journal?Adrian two (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I translated and added the information on the vaccine development, which, obviously, describes in greater detail in ru-Wiki. Although the text refers to reliable sources - by now, the stages of vaccine development have been widely discussed in the media and scientific journals. The English version focused mostly on public reaction to the results, so I expanded it with the "technicalities". Even at this talk, some were wondering if the third phase has been completed or not. This is not clear from the existing text, and in my opinion, the article needs some plain facts concerning dates of the beginnings and endings of trials. Also, I plan to supplement sections on criticism and research findings, and edited narrative logic, making the text more readable (tonight or so). --Khinkali (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not a textbook, this seemed to me way too much information. You also seem to have removed a lot of sourced information, and replaced it with information sourced to far more dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, Wikipedia is not a textbook or logbook. But the translation outlines study progress, describing only the basics needed to understand the topic. As, for example, it is in articles about HIV or Ebola vaccines. Although for the ease of convenience, I have cut down the information on the first two phases of the Gam-COVID-Vac and Gam-COVID-Vac Lyo trials, as they followed the same pattern (see a new variant: User:Khinkali/sandbox). Also I did not delete existing sources. Since "sections on research sections on research should be sourced to reviews and should describe research directions" (Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles), I have moved several sentences and sources discussing studies and their results to the appropriate sections on criticism and results (but I didn't have time to get to this section). --Khinkali (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Emergency use authorization of other vaccines
The following sentence in the lead seems out-of-date in light of recent emergency use authorization of other vaccines: "'In most countries following guidelines of the World Health Organization, vaccine candidates are not approved or licensed until safety and efficacy data from Phase III trials are assessed and confirmed internationally by regulators.'" Maybe it should be precede by "Before COVID19, ...". For background, see COVID-19 vaccine: and. fgnievinski (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That statement is still true for "most countries", although it may not apply for Russia and Gam-COVID-Vac which has been granted an unorthodox approval which is not recognized by the WHO or most vaccine experts (sources in lede). An EUA in most countries is neither an end to the Phase III clinical program nor is it eligibility for a vaccine license; it is a temporary marketing permit to address a disease emergency. As an EUA example, the "FDA expects vaccine manufacturers to include in their EUA requests a plan for active follow-up for safety, including deaths, hospitalizations, and other serious or clinically significant adverse events, among individuals who receive the vaccine under an EUA, to inform ongoing benefit-risk determinations to support continuation of the EUA. FDA also expects manufacturers who receive an EUA to continue their clinical trials to obtain additional safety and effectiveness information and pursue licensure (approval) ." "Most countries" have similar temporary marketing authorizations (EUAs), which are not formal or final approvals, nor are they licenses. Zefr (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed this sentence. It also struck me as weird, out-of-date POV. Mottezen (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Published III phase trials of the vaccine Sputnik V
02 February 2021, Published III Phase trials confirming the complete safety and efficacy 91,6 % of the vaccine Sputnik V.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.95.212.155 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 91.6% is not complete efficiency and a "good safety profile" does not mean complete safety. Also, this is only an "interim analysis".Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ok 91.6 % efficacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.95.212.155 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

this is the analysis of the publication itself, the 3rd phase was passed successfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.30.158.30 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

70 % good (exm. for AstraZeneca) 91 % excellent (exm. for Sputnik V) +there are no serious side effects from the vaccine. 95 % Moderna and Pfizer, but more than 200 people have died from side effects.
 * So? "the complete safety and efficacy" does not mean "safer than" (and that assumes the 200 claim is even true).Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the 91% for Sputnik directly comparable to the 95% for Pfizer? News stories are saying the 91% is efficacy against symptomatic Covid, and I thought the 95% was for all Covid (symptomatic and not). I'm not really qualified to read the Lancet paper. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Vial photos
There is a photo of some vials here: I like this photo better than the one we have now, because these appear to be production vials being used by the military. It's from the same source as the photo of the soldier being vaccinated, which claims to have a CC license. I don't see that on the source page, but my Russian isn't what it used to be. Also I don't know how to import these photos to WP. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

mangled ref?

 * I think something went wrong with your "consistent citation formatting" edit. On the Logunov et al Lancet paper it looks like you've got the correct DOI but the wrong title and authors. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Opps. Sorry about that.  The article question had not yet been indexed by PubMed and I accidentally assigned it to the wrong . Boghog (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotes
We've got a serious problem here with quotes. I just checked a bunch of them and every single one had problems, mostly mis-attributions. It's important to attribute quotes correctly. This is a BLP issue. We can't say someone said something when they didn't. Please be more careful when adding quotes. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No EU application yet
According to the EMA, there has been no application for market approval for the vaccine yet: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/clarification-sputnik-v-vaccine-eu-approval-process --2A02:8106:258:3A00:5C4D:FB3E:B971:DE13 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is meant by a "rolling review" but I've attributed the statement that the application was made to the RDIF. If this is in fact a contradiction we should add the EMA statement. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Croatia shows interest
Can someone please make the colour of Croatia on the map light green? The president, Andrej Plenkovic expressed interest. https://apnews.com/article/pandemics-health-philippines-coronavirus-pandemic-games-bd67d2d9538b8d5b601f7bfc336c9cc9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.137.190 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

AstraZeneca preliminary Ph II collaboration
This revert is warranted because 1) the trial is news, WP:NOTNEWS, and a future event, WP:CRYSTAL, and 2) it is only a small Phase II trial, which would not warrant attention until advanced to a larger, successful Phase II/III trial that would demonstrate safety, dosing, and evidence of efficacy. This is the clinicaltrials.gov description. The entry by is misusing a news announcement as though it were an important scientific result. News and incomplete vaccine research like this are unencyclopedic, and we should include this collaboration only if it reaches a conclusion of safety, dosing, and efficacy in Phase II/III. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the above.


 * 1) It's not a future event, as it has started on 10 February.
 * 2) Small is in the eye of the beholder, 100 participants is not small in my view.
 * 3) You cannot go more reputable WP:MEDRS than clinicaltrials.gov.
 * 4) Similar reports can be found in the articles for other COVID-19 vaccines, Adrian two (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * clinicaltrials.gov shows the trial has been on hold for recruiting since December; the file was updated for information on 10 Feb. With a conclusion date of Sep 2021, its results are a future event, so this is WP:CRYSTAL and is a news event, WP:NOTNEWS
 * a 100 person Phase II trial is relatively small compared to typical Phase II trials of "several hundreds";
 * as best as I can tell, clinicaltrials.gov is not a WP:MEDRS source - it is a sponsor-registration and reporting website, a free service of the US National Library of Medicine, with no secondary confirmation of plans or data accuracy. This is simply a news event, has not started on time (indicating possible problems with financing and trial organization), and has no encyclopedic content for the typical user to understand better the AZ vaccine. Zefr (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many vaccine trials concluding in the future, which are being reported in their respective articles. I definitely see this as encyclopedic content worth mentioning. And by the way, this is not the AZ vaccine talk page, it's the Sputnik V vaccine. Adrian two (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sputnik-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trials to start in Azerbaijan, MidEast (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccine-sputnik-astra/sputnik-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-trials-to-start-in-azerbaijan-mideast-idUSKBN2A41BY). Azerbaijan issued an approval to start the trials - MoH website (http://sehiyye.gov.az/xeberler/3356-azrbaycan-dnyada-ilk-olaraq-sputnik-v-v-astrazeneca-irktlrinin-covid-19-a-qar-olan-vaksinlrin-birg-ttbiqi-tdqiqatna-icaz-verdi.html)Yarscat (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

When I first added this, it was in a section called Clinical research/"Phase I–II". It seems reasonable that readers should expect such a section to at least mention all past and ongoing Phase 2 trials. Clearly all the COVID-19 vaccine articles at one time only mention ongoing research, and it is unclear when and indeed if articles should transition into a period when this is no longer mentioned. I am also puzzled why in the revert summary of my addition it was claimed this trial is "planned or abandoned ... WP:CRYSTAL", as the Reuters cite I had placed on it, which had an interview/press conference with the AstraZeneca Executive Vice-President R&D (notable enough to have a WP article Mene Pangalos ), said this trial was "underway".Rwendland (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I made it as a separate section since trials to combine Sputnik V and AStraZeneca vaccine is actually a different srudy from Phase II trials of Sputnik V itself (Phase II is already completed). I saw in the news that the trials to combine Sputnik V and CanSino vaccine are under discussion. So this will be also a separate study then. However, I fully agree with you that deleting information on Sputnik-AZ trials because it is "old" or "outdated" or "not happening" is ridiculous.Yarscat (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The above advocates for having this section are arguing that a future event announced in news articles is encyclopedic. Please explain why this is enduring content supported by actual publication in a medical journal for the concluded study rather than just a breaking story; see WP:NOTNEWS: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia ." All sources offered in the section added today by Yarscat are for a single pending event about the supposed trial in Azerbaijan, i.e., "not yet recruiting". Note for Yarscat: use sources in English and pay attention to WP:REFPUNCT. Reverting until we have consensus about including news about an announcement versus actual encyclopedic content, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all both of the provided sources were in English (Astra Zeneca website provided the statement in English and Russian on the same page with English being the first and only general title of the page being in Russian) and MoH of Azerbaijan statement is in English if you select English language on the top of the page itself (the link to Azeri text and English text is the same and is Azeri by default at landing to page). Please look more carefully at sources. Secondly, both the RFID and Astra Zeneca issued statements that they would do joint trials. Later they signed joint agreement in presents of President of Russia. I added information on the agreement then, as signing an agreement on higher lever is not news about celebrities. This is not a news but an official document serving as legal bases for the trials as well as documents issued by national regulators (but not the clinicaltrials website where information is not always displayed as up to date due to various reasons including delay of update from stakeholders with some information basically not submitted at all - try to find trials on third Russian vaccine already submitted for approval in Russia back in January). But even if recruiting is not yeat started it does not anyhow disregard the official approval for studies issued by MoH of Azerbaijan meaning that the process of conducting a studies is basically underway at least in Azerbaijan. I do not provide any other links to Reuters etc. on trials to be held in Azerbaijan and other Middle East countries since this is only news articles. In the articles of other COVID-19 vaccines there is much less significant information stated on who said what and what are the plans... and this is fine with everyone! (even with you, as I see from edit history of that pages).

To sum up. I modified the initial text on Sputnik-AZ trials to make it facts only and less speculative: No news, no speculations, only documented facts - even deleted information on announcements made by AZ and RFID on December 10, 2020. I checked other vaccine-19 pages and they have much more "announcement type" information stated at one place or another and since you are ok with that (as i see from page edit history) I publish modified text here. If this information for you is still not worthy of being on a wikipedia page then I kindly ask you to once more look at AZ1122, Moderna and others pages so to correct it for being a better example (becasue it some places they basically provide the same level of information as future plans only while here it is underway), since what you do here time after time by simply deleting whole text at once (even description of trials what is anyway has to be mentioned) is not helping the contribution to the wikipedia at all. Yarscat (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Agreement signed.
 * 2) Information on nature of trials.
 * 3) Issued approval to conduct trials.

The text that was added does not say that this trial has started yet. If it hasn't, I agree that this is "crystal ball" and should be removed. Why is the paragraph still there if we don't have consensus for its inclusion? Also if it's going to stay could someone please fix the numerous typos? GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Sorry for breaking into your discussion, I'll try to format your "walls of text" for easier reading, ok? Uchyot (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Present tense where inappropriate
Many statements in this article are written in the present tense, but with time have or soon will become incorrect or misleading. How many Canadians would refuse to take the vaccine? 68%? But that was last August, and it is not specified. Lots of items in this article, including the lead, state things that should be in the past tense - "the phase III trial is still undergoing (sic)." People will read this article 5 years from now. Present tense statements expire, and it appears no one has been cleaning them up in this article, which leads to information being presented out of context (like the Canadian survey - is that figure still correct, given recent changes?). Editors who work on this and other articles about current or recent events need to bear that in mind. Either write it in past tense, specify a date for the statement, or make sure to come back and fix dated statements. There's also a template that can automate that, isn't there? Dcs002 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Its ref link has been four-oh-foured so I removed it as uncitationable AND, as you stated, outdated (compare undertested Sputnik-V on Summer 2020 vs tested Sputnik-V which many people have tried out). Uchyot (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Never mind, "5 38 dot com" site have saved the poll's PDF Uchyot (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is "V" really for "vaccine"?
Is "V" for "vector" (type of vaccine) instead of "vaccine"? What is the source for it being "vaccine"? --Mortense (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * would V for vector explain why it's a Latin V even in Russian where vaccine starts with В? Irtapil (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mortense: Good question. Some say the V is for 5 = Sputnik 5 (the satelitte). I checked the version history, first it came in with this version on 21 August 2020 as "(V-vaccine)" without source. I didn't check out who changed it later to "(V for vaccine)". So cause of missing source, I removed it: KurtR (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * was that one particularly significant though? It's not even consistently called five, and Sputnik One seemed a lot more significant? I was assuming the V was a Roman five, but as far as i can tell they numbering on Sputnik spacecraft went haywire after three, according to the List of spacecraft called Sputnik. "Sputnik IV" would be a terrible name for a vaccine given IM, a distinct safety hazard, maybe they just fudged it ahead to five? Irtapil (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * V - Victory. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.30.158.30 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @95.30.158.30, "V" abbreviation is not typical for Russian-speaking people, but it really is. And this abbreviation was chosen for the first export consumer (Argentina). Thanks you Mr. 95.30.158.30. C144229 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, something that really is typical for Russian (and which I repeatedly have seen also when Russian speaking scientists lecture or write summaries in English) is the habit to write a hyphen where in the Russian language two items are put aside without a copula; see Zero_copula. In other words, if Russian speakers with limited knowledge of English try to state that "V is (a) vaccine", they do as in Russian (which like some other Slavic languages a long time ago abandoned this use of the Russian correspondence (yest) to the form "is"); they write "V - vaccine", pronounced "V vaccine". JoergenB (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * i don't quite understand what you're getting at? Irtapil (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, likely, my minor comment was unnecessary, in which case I apologise. (When I wrote it after a quick reading, I was under the impression that the change from "V-vaccine" to "V for vaccine" mistakenly could have been thought to be something other than a trivial correction from level 1 English to a higher level.) JoergenB (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To me, V for vaccine seemed unlikely - or at least unlikely to be the full story - because if it was that, it would use В when written in Russian, but it uses a Latin V in Russian and even in Arabic.
 * But Arabic service who call it سبوتنيك في phonetically, as if saying "vee" (well, "fee", but that's another story), partly because putting a Latin V in the middle of Arabic text like on the official website is so weird.
 * Indian TV pronounces it "Sputnik Five", which is what i guessed V meant until i heard the BBC saying "Sputnik Vee" and now i'm just baffled.
 * Irtapil (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Irtapil (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * i thought the name came before the Argentina deal?
 * Irtapil (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was just that the interview with head of RDIF was during the Argentina deal and this was recorded by notable source.
 * Irtapil (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was just that the interview with head of RDIF was during the Argentina deal and this was recorded by notable source.

Crimea
I've edited the caption regarding to Crimea to simply note that the territory is considered by most countries to be Ukrainian, but has been administered by Russia since 2014. This article is not the proper place for in depth commentary about the status of Crimea, much less soapboxing on the topic. Keep it simple and NPOV. -2003:CA:8721:10C:7CC5:2C78:8CE0:290E (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to that, K.I.S.S. principle is a must (since Crimeans seem to have access to the subj' vaccine) Uchyot (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what is the meaning of the word subj' in your above comment? • Мастер Шторм (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here knows what is the meaning of the word subj' in the comment by User:Uchyot? • Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I used subj' as short for "subject". To answer your question throughly(in attempt to understand your confusion), I decided to use several search engines now to see if it's okay to do so nowadays... So, according to what I can see in several dctionaries, "subj" for "subject" is [still] a thing (although "subj"-for-"subjunctive" is also a thing now, which may be confusing). Regards, Uchyot (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Adenovirus transport types
Article says: "The ... adenovirus types 26 and 5 are both used as vectors in the vaccine."

That's interesting, but the Mastadenovirus article only talks of species A through G. What is the mapping between these?

DouglasHeld (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Adenoviridae. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Roulette
So, there is this kind of phrase: EMA management board chair Christa Wirthumer-Hoche told Austria's ORF broadcaster:

"It's somewhat comparable to Russian roulette. I would strongly advise against a national emergency authorisation,"

There's something I don't like - in general - about this phrase's wording: it elusively mixes individual risk of taking the vaccine and general, "statistical" risks of nation-wide emergency vaccinations. I would be fine with "rolling a dice" phrase, but not with gun-against-head associations. In layman terms, I don't want individual jabs to be associated with actual revolver-involving gambling. That just sound anti-vaxxerish, in some way. Uchyot (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Does it contain Adjuvant?
Wikipedia now says:

"As per the official datasheet, no further components or ingredients, including other adjuvants, should be included in the vaccine.[1]"

What do you mean by other? Does it contain adjuvant? The wikipedia article should mention does it contain an adjuvant or not.

What about other covid-19 vaccines that are in wide use, for example AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson&Johnson, SinoPharm = SinoFarm? Which of them contain, or do not contain adjuvants and what adjuvants do they contain?

--ee1518 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I found the answers merely by googling them. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell what query was used to look up the answer in Google? I mean, I am not a pro in medical field so I wouldn't be able to even properly google the correct term. Uchyot (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried simple queries like "does [vaccine name] contain adjuvant?" or simply "adjuvant [vaccine name]". From the results, only WP: MEDRS sources should be chosen. As the pandemic is still very recent, it is often impossible to find systematic reviews with the desired information; so, primary or secondary sources would be accepted as long as they are reliable, although pre-prints should generally be avoided. One way to find out if a source is reliable is to check SCImago. Another is to limit oneself to perennial sources. Viral vector vaccines, such as Sputnik V, generally do not require adjuvants, so if no adjuvants are listed in the components, one should not expect to find any. Adjuvants are typical in inactivated vaccines and subunit vaccines but rare in other types of vaccines. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The note of concern
I am wondering why the "note of concern" written as a reply to the lancet study is not mentioned. A number of Wikipedia's in different languages do mention it, and - without any medical, only statistical knowledge on my part - he concerns raised do seem in need of explanation. See https://cattiviscienziati.com/2020/09/07/note-of-concern/ for the note, for another Wikipedia see for example the German version of this article. --2A02:8109:9AC0:1E40:69CB:CE26:5006:2BD9 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not WP:MEDRS as far as I know. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext#%20

Title: Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial

Published: May 12, 2021

... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00894-1/fulltext#%20

Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial – Authors' reply

Published:May 12, 2021

...

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/20/russias-claims-of-976-sputnik-v-efficacy-under-the-spotlight-a73669

"Updated: April 20, 2021 Russia’s Claims of Sputnik V's 97.6% Effectiveness Under the Spotlight Analysis by The Moscow Times and independent statistician Alexander Dragan, who has been closely tracking Russia’s vaccination statistics, suggests the real world effectiveness could be to 86-90% — slightly below the results Sputnik V’s Phase 3 clinical trials, which were published in The Lancet and showed an efficacy of 91.6%".

Looks like even the Sputnik V marketers don't firmly believe in 97.6% as they still mainly advertise the old 91.6% in Twitter:

"Sputnik V is the world’s first registered COVID-19 vaccine with over 91.6% efficacy, developed by Gamaleya Inst. Authorized in 65 countries".

https://twitter.com/sputnikvaccine

--ee1518 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Sputnik Light be merged into this article, as that is just the first dose of Sputnik V. Miasma Eternal TALK 00:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally Oppose, although the vaccine is the same as Sputnik V, the vaccine need separate authorizations. Dede2008 (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It has to be separate the article from the vaccine authorization like 2 Sinopharm's COVID-19 vaccines (BBIBP-CorV and WIBP-CorV separated articles). Abrilando232 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Perhaps in a somewhat distant future, when articles on COVID-19 vaccines begin to be consolidated into fewer articles. For now, I agree that, because it is researched and approved separately, it is better to keep it in its own dedicated article. It belongs to the important category of single-dose COVID-19 vaccines, all of which have a drastically simplified delivery process, so one can expect rapid adoption and probably different peculiarities than those of the double-dose Sputnik V. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - there is no independent notability mandating an independent article, and the content can be merged in here. The side effects, efficacy (of dose 1 of this and that vaccine entirely) and other information are exactly the same - there is no sense duplicating that sort of thing over two pages. A section can easily be created here covering "Sputnik Light" and describing the differences. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - people will keep confusing "light" one-shot for "real" two-shot Sputnik V if those two are mixed in one article. I would be a shame if a reputable news source would confuse those two (or mix those two up intentionally in a headline; the "reading only headlines" is a problem nowadays). ALSO: the vaccine authorization part is important, since Sputnik V has own reputation/certification; while Sputnik Light has to go through the bureaus of bureaucracy anew. Uchyot (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The "Sputnik Light" stub could easily be incorporated as a subsection for the main article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NOPAGE this content makes best sense together. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - It is part of the same topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SupportMarko8726 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the idea for a merger is logical, but also could risk confusing or misinforming the readers due to the aforementioned concerns. I could be convinced to support this if somebody can take it upon themselves to rewrite the article under a section in such a way as to clearly differentiate the two and dispel any confusion. Goodposts (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to that notion Uchyot (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No reason for an offshoot article. This won't (ever) be notable if Sputnik V didn't exist in the first place. A section at Sputnik V can be dedicated for this one-shot version. There's no reason for anyone to be confused about the two if we're going to explain their differences coherently. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No meaningful difference and Sputnik Light is really just marketting.
 * Support—indopug (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Combination vector vaccine
The link in the lead to "combination vector vaccine" goes to the category page for "Combination vaccines" like the MMR vaccine. To me those sound like two different things -- a combination vector vaccine being a vaccine that works in two ways, and a combination vaccine providing immunity against two (or more) viruses.

Can someone more knowledgeable on this topic clarify this and change the link as appropriate? 82.71.11.209 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Spied
The Sun is not a reliable source, yet other outlets are reporting this story: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/13/russia-denies-claims-it-stole-covid-vaccine-blueprint.html tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...

The Sun tabloid newspaper first reported the allegations made by the British security services although Downing Street declined to comment. It's not the first time that Russia has been accused of trying to steal and hack Covid vaccine data but Moscow has repeatedly denied the accusations, with RDIF calling the latest report "fake" and a "blatant lie."

Back in 2020, claims of same level of "whaaaaaat?!"-ness were made on uselessness of Gam-Covid-Vac. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare
Sorry for not being very helpful here, but this would easily make it to the worst article I have encountered in the past couple of years. Way too long, no useful structure, repetitions all over, and most of the sources outdated.

I cannot find any point of entry for improving the article, and have only one suggestions which is to completely rewrite it from scratch. --Muhali (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is. Back in 2020, it was even more of a nightmare; people would push their points of view to the point of losing Wiki-privelleges. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine effectiveness versus efficacy
I would like to introduce the definitions of "vaccine efficacy" and "vaccine effectiveness" at the beginning of each relevant section in the article. There are currently two sections with the relevant titles, and it is not clear what the difference is between the two terms. Unfortunately, Wikipedia itself only has an article on the efficacy of vaccines, which does not describe the distinction. The difference between the two is very important, and there is much confusion. Here I am quoting the definitions given by the WHO and the CDC. I would like to rephrase these definitions and place them in the appropriate sections of the article, but I await constructive criticism of my suggestion. Below are definitions from the relevant agencies.

"A vaccine’s efficacy is measured in a controlled clinical trial and is based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ (usually disease) compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. Once the study is complete, the numbers of sick people in each group are compared, to calculate the relative risk of getting sick depending on whether or not the subjects received the vaccine. From this we get the efficacy – a measure of how much the vaccine lowered the risk of getting sick. If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo." 

"Vaccine effectiveness is a measure of how well vaccination protects people against outcomes such as infection, symptomatic illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccine effectiveness is typically measured through observational studies specifically designed to estimate individual protection from vaccination under “real-world” conditions."Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC) The suggested text for effectiveness: "The effectiveness of COVID-19, or any other vaccine], is determined after clinical trials are completed in a mass vaccination in a "real-world" setting. This is an assessment of how well the vaccine protects people from outcomes such as infection, symptomatic illness, hospitalization, and death." Olgamatveeva (talk)
 * That was not all you did. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think if we can avoid confronting our general readership with having to know about this fairly technical distinction, so much the better. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case it is confusing why the article have two sections. One sentence explanation in each section is providing the rational for that. Both CDC and WHO agree that this in important to know the difference and took an effort to explain it to general public. Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I published the relevant text for approval other changes two days ago and you can find it at this page. "I would like to remove “On 29 June 2021, the director of the Gamaleya Institute, Denis Logunov, said that Sputnik V is about 90% effective against the Delta variant.[26] On 11 August, health minister Mikhail Murashko said its effectiveness is 83%.[27] “ These statements are taken from press releases. However, I suggest keeping the text “On 25 August, a preliminary version of a case-control study indicated an unadjusted effectiveness of about 50% against symptomatic disease. The authors expected that adjusting for age and sex would increase the estimate, citing an increase from 66% to 81% when adjusting the data for effectiveness against hospitalization.[A]” Although these statements are based on a published preprint, I believe that the study will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I know that the research project PI has a very high scientific reputation. I also suggest that to leave the reference to the other preprint but remove the data table until the preprint is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead of a table, I suggest writing one sentence: According to the study, the protective effectiveness of Sputnik V against COVID-19 infection was 79%, against hospitalization - 81%, against death - 88%. The sentence must follow the text: A large-scale study in Mexico assessed 793,487 vaccinated adults by various vaccines compared to 4,792,338 unvaccinated adults between 24 December 2020 and 27 September 27, 2021. The results were as follows:[32] Olgamatveeva (talk)" 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Pharmacology section
Instead of the phrase, “It is similar to the approach used by the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine[42][43] that also employ HEK 293 cell line for the vector replication during the manufacturing process.[44] “ I would like to introduce three sentences: “Adenoviral vectors for expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have also been used in two other COVID-19 vaccines. One is called Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, which utilizes the Ad26COV2 viral vector based on the human virus Ad26 (serotype 26). For this vaccine, the cell line PER.C6 is used to replicate the vector. Another one called Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID‑19 vaccine, it uses chimpanzee adenovirus (ChAdOx1) as the vector. Producer cells for non-replicating adenovirus vectors for both Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID‑19 and GAM-COVID-VAC vaccines were obtained from the HEK 293 cell line” Olgamatveeva (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, 3 vaccines in 3 sentences, would be nice! 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)