Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

COVID-19 High‑importance

	COVID-19 portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford High‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nanoparticles?

Does it use nanoparticles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a forum to discuss the topic. It does insofar as a virus is a nanoparticle; viral vector vaccine. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about nanoparticle lipids obviously. So, does it use nanoparticles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability issues

It's in category "Withdrawn drugs" but I can't find any sourced content in the article regarding its alleged withdrawal. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about it here,[1] and the implication is it's being used in parts of the world where the mRNA ones are tricky to store. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been banned in at least Australia. I'd assume the distinction between banned and withdrawn is to be made, as the manufacturer didn't make this decision. Moreover, I don't know how we treat that category when it has only been withdrawn from some markets (see Nefazodone for a similar instance for withdrawn from some markets and available in others).

That being said, perhaps the category should be reassessed now. Kimen8 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Developer

Should we change the developer from Oxford University to Jenner Institute? Pro translator (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]