The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
It's not quite clear the relevance of the final line in the 'Economics' section, parts of which are lifted close-to-verbatim from the FT article it cites.
While somewhat informative, the article also only demonstrates two cases of Paxlovid being given as a gift. Further, the language in the sentence is very similar to that in the FT article, and it seems not much effort has been made to de-editorialize it, so to speak. So, first I would question the relevance of the sentence altogether. The FT article cited doesn't demonstrate the extent of the phenomena well enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Second, at minimum the language should be changed to be more neutral and fitting for an encyclopedia. Since the article is unlocked, I'm going to use my discretion and delete. Evan.morien (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Paxlovid" pronunciation
It might be helpful to include that; the Pfizer commercial has actors saying "If it's COVID, it's Paxlovid", but that's obviously a primary source so I'm assuming it's a no-go. Mapsax (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede is bent out of shape
Lede contains as of today 2 paragraphs about regulatory history (!) but nothing about the medically important rebound phenomenon, as present in the body of the page. Lede was stuffed with recentism and is cluttered with refs. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Wuerzele (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
