Article purpose/name

@BD2412: I think you may have been premature with creating this article. Can you clarify what the purpose is? The lead section and most content focuses on SARS-CoV-2, but you do cover other coronaviruses.

Is the name right? If you want to cover multiple coronaviruses, then shouldn't it be Coronavirus vaccines? If you're focusing on SARS-CoV-2, then I think it's important to be clear that no vaccine yet exists, so the title should be SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research or something.

This article should follow WP:MEDRS. There's a lot of non-MEDRS-compliant reporting of vaccine research. We need to be careful here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to follow the model of HIV vaccine (for which there is, of course, also no vaccine in existence). However, as the article presently indicates, there are vaccine candidates in phase III clinical trials, so it would be more accurate to say that vaccines are being tested for effectiveness than that they don't exist at all. With respect to WP:MEDRS, the content in this article is almost entirely material compiled from other articles identified in the edit history, so to the extent that a problem with sourcing exists, it originates in those articles, and should be fixed in those first. Cheers! BD2412 T 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is confusing to me. If I understand the subject of the article correctly, it should be titled something like SARS-CoV-2 vaccine or COVID-19 vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research, as Bondegezou suggested. I don't really think "Coronavirus vaccines" (as a broader topic including SARS etc.) is coherent enough for a single article, but I'm far from an expert so I may be wrong. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly haven't decided myself what the scope should be. My understanding is that researchers working on the COVID-19 vaccine are using work done on previous coronavirus vaccine efforts as a springboard for their work, so that it is relevant to mention either way. BD2412 T 13:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some mention of prior coronavirus vaccines is appropriate either way, but we need to decide what the article is about in order to decide what the title is. If we're just concentrating on SARS-CoV-2, then the titled should be something like COVID-19 vaccine research. I think vaccines are more normally named after the diseases than the virus, thus "COVID-19 vaccine". I still think this article must avoid giving the impression there is a vaccine, thus "... vaccine research". (I would support the same for HIV vaccine.)
There are sourcing problems elsewhere, but that's no excuse to repeat them here! We must aim to comply with MEDRS. Long lists of different people developing vaccines based on news reports are not useful, so I'd cut back on those. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article focused on COVID-19 vaccine research makes more sense (of course other coronavirus vaccine research should be mentioned where relevant). COVID-19 vaccine research works for me. Any objections to that title? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will move this to COVID-19 vaccine for now, and we can have a multimove RM proposal for both this and HIV vaccine. I would prefer that our titles remain internally consistent to that extent. I believe there may also be some other "vaccine" articles for conditions for which a vaccine is only in the research stages. BD2412 T 02:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the title COVID-19 vaccine too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to link the move discussions: the HIV and COVID-19 vaccine research is at different stages, so they're not exactly comparable. I support a move to "... vaccine research" here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The process to request a contested move is through Wikipedia:Requested moves. BD2412 T 11:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're allowed to discuss matters on the Talk page first. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly are, but I don't think we are headed towards the resolution you propose. It seems pointless to move this page to a "research" title when it will just have to be moved back once that research translates into a vaccine, even if the vaccine itself is only in some experimental stage. By contrast, even long-established vaccines such as measles and polio are constant subjects of continuing research, which is not reflected in the article titles. In addition to HIV, there are articles like Cytomegalovirus vaccine, Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, and Schistosomiasis vaccine, covering various still-incipient efforts to develop vaccines. More broadly, Wikipedia has numerous articles on topics like films and albums in production or treaties in negotiation which indicate the subject without indicating the stage of development. BD2412 T 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting these. Some seem OK to me. For example, Schistosomiasis vaccine describes a vaccine that exists and is being tested, although we don't know whether it works. Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine, on the other hand, seems much more like this case and I think should be re-named also.

The concern here, I suggest, is that there is considerable misinformation, conspiracy theories, going around saying a vaccine already exists. It is thus important to be very clear that that isn't the case. Maybe that issue hasn't come up with the much lower profile Respiratory syncytial virus vaccine? Moving a page isn't difficult: the idea that because we will have to move it back at some point in the future so there's no point moving it now doesn't seem persuasive to me. We're not talking about some vast effort required. I've probably spent longer writing this comment than it would take! Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per my prior note on the main articlecoronavirus disease 2019 talkpage , it should be Coronavirus 19 vaccine research/or COVID-19 vaccine research...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are conspiracy theories - but there are also actual vaccines, already at the first-in-human stage. If you want to be accurate, then say there is no vaccine approved by a regulatory agency: but that isn't going to help with the conspiracy theorists. Getting together to say there is no vaccine when there is TV footage of people being vaccinated in the Seattle trial is only going to look like....a conspiracy. Hildabast (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2020

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: No consensus to move, obviously. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


COVID-19 vaccine → Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research – Current title gives the impression that there already exist a vaccine. We should be very clear that this is not the case. In addition, this article documents the research into a vaccine, so that should be in the title. See earlier discussion. The title COVID-19 vaccine research is also fine by me, the purpose of this RM is to append research to the title. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff (3 March 2020). "Moderna Press Release - 3 March 2020". Moderna. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  2. ^ Prvulovic, Mark (March 11, 2020). "Will Moderna Make a Fortune Off Its Coronavirus Vaccine? - There's a lot of excitement surrounding this vaccine, but is there any money to be made from it?". The Motley Fool. Retrieved March 11, 2020.
P.S.: I think COVID-19 vaccine research is fine, rather than Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine research. Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last part is the key point (and perhaps what the proposal is picking up on): there is no vaccine and I’m not sure what is considered a reasonable stage of development. I’m a bit taken aback by “remarkably shortsighted” because nothing prevents us from splitting the article out again when it’s warranted. But at any rate, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine makes more sense to me. Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are, per reports, tests underway right now. Even if it is unlicensed and unproven, what is being tested is a vaccine. At this point, we can't say that there is no vaccine, but that the vaccines in development have yet to be proven. BD2412 T 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 is that a logical basis for naming this article?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this article is about the vaccine, whatever stage of development it is at. The picture is a bit hazy right now, but it may well clear up before the deadline for this discussion to close. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is, indeed, work being done on multiple fronts to develop a vaccine. However, most of that work fails WP:MEDRS. Whatever name is picked, can I remind editors to follow WP:MEDRS, which does not support detailed coverage of early experiments? Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:MEDRS does not support detailed coverage of early experiments, then it can not be reasonably used for an article that needs to cover these things to be informative to readers. We can't pretend that reliable sources are not reporting these activities. BD2412 T 21:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of Wikipedia to cover everything: WP:NOT. We follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:MEDRS. If you don't like them, take it to the Talk page for MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS specifically applies only to biomedical information, not to commercial information. It has no bearing on whether we report that companies or entities are testing a vaccine, absent claims about the specific biomedical functionality or effectiveness of that vaccine. BD2412 T 23:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about a vaccine (for people) clearly falls under WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I know how to write an article on a medical topic, thanks. BD2412 T 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it. Lets work on ensuring this article satisfies WP:MEDRS then. I quote: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."
And: "Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content." Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Coronavirus vaccine: Development, timeline, and more". Medical News Today. Retrieved 14 March 2020.

Vaccine research or more broadly 'Drug research'?

My edits here today were rightfully reverted by a mobile IP user because I had mistakenly added information on antiviral drug candidates, not specifically vaccines. But the most promising drug class to relieve COVID-19 infection - at present - is the antiviral category, such as remdesivir.[1] People are using Wikipedia (over 100,000 page views in the past month) for updates on the clinical progress of any drug candidate to treat the disease. Perhaps we should be considering a page move to a broader article title: "COVID-19 drug research". --Zefr (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ned Pagliarulo (5 March 2020). "A closer look at the Ebola drug that's become the top hope for a coronavirus treatment". BioPharma Dive. Retrieved 19 March 2020. There's only one drug right now that we think may have real efficacy. And that's remdesivir." said Bruce Aylward, a senior advisor and international leader of the World Health Organization's joint mission to China

That would be a different topic altogether. Vaccines are a preventative measure, and not any kind of "therapy"; they are unique in both their formulation and operation, which is why we have distinct articles on each of the approximately three dozen specific human vaccines developed in the course of human history. BD2412 T 19:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having information on development of therapies or preventatives or more broadly "drugs" all in one place would be useful to most Wikipedia users unfamiliar with medicines used to treat the virus and see the process of clinical research. I think we have the responsibility to consolidate. --Zefr (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do that for any other vaccines. Each is its own article, and quite frankly, properly recording the process for developing a vaccine will take up so much space that having anything else will quickly make it overly long. Also, to the point, vaccines are not used to treat the virus. They are a different class of things. You might as well combine the articles on the medicines with face mask and social distancing. BD2412 T 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be so unwieldy to include every possible preventative. We already have tracking started by using bullet points for the ~35 drugs in development. Progress in drug development will be slow, so the article - once established with the individual drug candidates - would be easy to update. If we challenge ourselves to making it digestible for non-medical encyclopedia users, broader coverage than only vaccines would likely help. --Zefr (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then start a separate article on COVID-19 drug research and include a see also or ((see main)) link to this one. I strongly oppose conflating the topics, for the reasons stated. BD2412 T 20:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Better sources

As per WP:MEDRS, let's try to move to content based on systematic reviews in medical journals. This systematic review is now out (doi:10.3390/jcm9030623). Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using more references to systematic reviews in medical journals where possible, using references to other studies in medical journals as a second choice, and removing most content citing non-MEDRS compliant sources, i.e. news reports. Obviously, each particular piece of text and citation needs to be considered within its own context. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate my point from several sections above that the material of concern was generally copied from Coronavirus disease 2019. This is not intended as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point, but that this article originates from that "other stuff". This is important because Coronavirus disease 2019 is obviously the article getting more pageviews (about fifty times as many as this page), meaning that if this is a problem, it is magnified there. Furthermore, if the problem is "fixed" here but not there, then these articles will have inconsistent information. I would therefore strongly counsel addressing the contents of the supertopic article first. BD2412 T 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I presume such a stricture would not apply to content like the sentence I just added about The Guardian reporting that President Trump attempted to secure exclusive rights to such a vaccine. BD2412 T 18:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your two comments immediately above. Yes, we should improve text on Coronavirus disease 2019 in line with WP:MEDRS. And, yes, reporting (from multiple news sources) that Trump sought exclusive rights to a vaccine is a political perspective that need satisfy just WP:RS and not WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Which link? BD2412 T 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means my first link at the top. Try doi:10.3390/jcm9030623 - that works. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge project with SUMMIT

In the "Preclinical research" section an Oak Ridge project utiltizing the SUMMIT computer is described. Isn't this research aimed at identifying an anti-viral, rather than a vaccine? --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article refers to using these 77 compounds to make vaccines, but the original ChemRxiv piece says nothing at all about vaccines. More to the point, what the CNN article describes is not how vaccines work at all. I would agree with removing it on this basis (or moving it to a different article that is more relevant), but I am concerned that someone else will come along and add it back, unless we have some explanation of why CNN is not quite right in characterizing this as a step towards a vaccine. BD2412 T 11:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories