This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Warp Speed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Can we start a list of the chosen operation warp speed companies be added to this wiki? [IP unsigned, July 2020]
Done - Zefr ( talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Is it me, or is this perhaps somewhat unwanted: the references for most of the companies mentioned in the list, point to a single source (#17) which talks primarily about a single company? Okay, the other companies do get mentioned at the end in the source, but wouldn't it be appropriate to use a more neutral source if it's being used for several companies? 213.127.71.119 ( talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of Star Trek or what the fictional warp drive means. Do other editors believe the meaning will be apparent to nearly all readers with a sufficient grasp of English to read the article? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-ethical-issues Charles Juvon ( talk) 02:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If HHS and OWS do not say that a company is being funded, then they are NOT funded. Mcdonalds is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Wal-Mart is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Your claim of lack of transparency is not fitting here. The companies receiving funding is transparent. Until this . gov site says they are funded, they are not https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html it does not matter what Vaxart says, or what CNN says vaxart says, or yahoo finance says what vaxart says. HHS.GOV says who is funded. [IP unsigned, September 2020]
I think the criticisms of involved companies who tout their OWS involvement should be mentioned, but I am not wedded to having it in the Criticism section. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
OWS is more than R&D investment in developing a company's vaccine candidate. The Pfizer-BioNTech partnership has accrued at least four benefits from OWS: 1) expedited FDA review and approval to begin the Phase III trial in the USA in April; 2) 155 clinical trial centers across the country, partially coordinated with FDA assistance and ongoing regulatory oversight; 3) a $2 B commitment by the US government to purchase the Pfizer vaccine, if proven safe and effective; 4) expedited FDA review of trial results and Emergency Use Authorization (conducted by the FDA), if further results of the trial are positive. In other words, the OWS national infrastructure is aiding the Pfizer-BioNTech candidate onto the US market much faster than a successful vaccine normally would pass through clinical trial scrutiny and FDA review and approval. Success in the USA will enable approval and sales for Pfizer in other countries, such as Canada. Pfizer has been mentioned as a part of OWS since the first announcement. Every vaccine expert agrees that assessment and potential approval of a vaccine in the USA and other countries is the fastest process for a vaccine in history. Approve of the US administration or not, the OWS infrastructure is enabling the rapid testing, review, and licensing process for a safe and effective vaccine. Zefr ( talk) 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I know that it's not usable, but I'll record here that the Phase I and Phase II testing for Pfizer was definitely conducted with benefit from Operation Warp Speed, as some of that testing was done here at NYU-Langone Vaccine Center, which was an Operation Warp Speed facility. Drsruli ( talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
On Fri. 2020-11-13, Pres. Trump, Moncef Slaoui, and Gen. Perna all gave a press briefing that was televised in which they announced a lot of details about the project's progress. I'm surprised that I don't see the information here, and yet there have been dozens of other edits since then. Was there no text-based source for this conference, or did all of the written media services boycott it? -- Eliyahu S Talk 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It is obviously noteworthy that Warp Speed is a reference to Star Trek and the Warp drive used in science fiction. The article does not mention where this name comes from even though it is rooted in popular culture. The article does not mention the origin of "Warp Speed" with a single line. -- 24.250.23.95 ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a brief and outdated summary of OWS in COVID-19 vaccine § National governments, which mentions $4.5 billion in spending but appears woefully out of date given more recent accounts of $11 billion and $18 billion. Hoping an editor familiar with OWS can help update/expand the program summary in that topic. - Wikmoz ( talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I would presume that a "cost" section for WWII would actually tell me how much WWII actually cost.
In dollars.
JohndanR (
talk) 20:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Done I added this paragraph, recognizing that there seems to be cost data only through mid-December. There was vague news in late January that the Biden administration is going to change the name from OWS to something less "speedy", but obviously there are still OWS programs and costs underway, such as clinical trial support and pre-approval manufacturing for OWS recipients, like J&J and Novavax, i.e., there are ongoing costs yet to be revealed in 2021. Zefr ( talk) 00:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The table correctly notes that there was a pause for the AstraZeneca vaccine due to worries about blood clotting. A reader contacted Wikimedia to note that there was also a pause for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine but this is not mentioned. I think there should be.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Companies receiving research funding" section within the table, the notes for "Merck and IAVI" should read
two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 2021
the 1 is missing at the end of 2021 in the sentence which currently reads
two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 202 James05345 ( talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Be bold and edit such an error yourself. Thanks. Zefr ( talk) 22:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Under the Timeline section, in the final sentence spell out “admin” for consistency and clarity. Dakamine ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph under the "Distribution" sub-heading: As of January 31, 2021, 63.7 million doses had been delivered pursuant to Operation Warp Speed, of a total of 200 million doses that Pfizer and Moderna were contractually obligated to provide by the end of March 2021. <ref> https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319<ref> 2601:147:C200:310:4088:463B:8C70:AF58 ( talk) 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)William Bell wumhenry@gmail.com
Done, with some editing. Zefr ( talk) 19:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Operation Warp Speed? (These companies are not listed as having received OWS benefits.) Drsruli ( talk) 04:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Joe Biden does not get credit for operation warpspeed. Why are you posting this lie? 108.18.209.172 ( talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:
Nowhere in the source material does it state, as WP does, that distribution depended on proof of “safe and effective”, this seems to be a case of editorializing by the editors. petrarchan47 คุ ก 14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Are we not saying this anymore or something? 222.108.156.194 ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Warp Speed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Can we start a list of the chosen operation warp speed companies be added to this wiki? [IP unsigned, July 2020]
Done - Zefr ( talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Is it me, or is this perhaps somewhat unwanted: the references for most of the companies mentioned in the list, point to a single source (#17) which talks primarily about a single company? Okay, the other companies do get mentioned at the end in the source, but wouldn't it be appropriate to use a more neutral source if it's being used for several companies? 213.127.71.119 ( talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of Star Trek or what the fictional warp drive means. Do other editors believe the meaning will be apparent to nearly all readers with a sufficient grasp of English to read the article? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-ethical-issues Charles Juvon ( talk) 02:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If HHS and OWS do not say that a company is being funded, then they are NOT funded. Mcdonalds is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Wal-Mart is not being funded by OWS but HHS has not specifically said they are not. Your claim of lack of transparency is not fitting here. The companies receiving funding is transparent. Until this . gov site says they are funded, they are not https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html it does not matter what Vaxart says, or what CNN says vaxart says, or yahoo finance says what vaxart says. HHS.GOV says who is funded. [IP unsigned, September 2020]
I think the criticisms of involved companies who tout their OWS involvement should be mentioned, but I am not wedded to having it in the Criticism section. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
OWS is more than R&D investment in developing a company's vaccine candidate. The Pfizer-BioNTech partnership has accrued at least four benefits from OWS: 1) expedited FDA review and approval to begin the Phase III trial in the USA in April; 2) 155 clinical trial centers across the country, partially coordinated with FDA assistance and ongoing regulatory oversight; 3) a $2 B commitment by the US government to purchase the Pfizer vaccine, if proven safe and effective; 4) expedited FDA review of trial results and Emergency Use Authorization (conducted by the FDA), if further results of the trial are positive. In other words, the OWS national infrastructure is aiding the Pfizer-BioNTech candidate onto the US market much faster than a successful vaccine normally would pass through clinical trial scrutiny and FDA review and approval. Success in the USA will enable approval and sales for Pfizer in other countries, such as Canada. Pfizer has been mentioned as a part of OWS since the first announcement. Every vaccine expert agrees that assessment and potential approval of a vaccine in the USA and other countries is the fastest process for a vaccine in history. Approve of the US administration or not, the OWS infrastructure is enabling the rapid testing, review, and licensing process for a safe and effective vaccine. Zefr ( talk) 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I know that it's not usable, but I'll record here that the Phase I and Phase II testing for Pfizer was definitely conducted with benefit from Operation Warp Speed, as some of that testing was done here at NYU-Langone Vaccine Center, which was an Operation Warp Speed facility. Drsruli ( talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
On Fri. 2020-11-13, Pres. Trump, Moncef Slaoui, and Gen. Perna all gave a press briefing that was televised in which they announced a lot of details about the project's progress. I'm surprised that I don't see the information here, and yet there have been dozens of other edits since then. Was there no text-based source for this conference, or did all of the written media services boycott it? -- Eliyahu S Talk 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It is obviously noteworthy that Warp Speed is a reference to Star Trek and the Warp drive used in science fiction. The article does not mention where this name comes from even though it is rooted in popular culture. The article does not mention the origin of "Warp Speed" with a single line. -- 24.250.23.95 ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a brief and outdated summary of OWS in COVID-19 vaccine § National governments, which mentions $4.5 billion in spending but appears woefully out of date given more recent accounts of $11 billion and $18 billion. Hoping an editor familiar with OWS can help update/expand the program summary in that topic. - Wikmoz ( talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I would presume that a "cost" section for WWII would actually tell me how much WWII actually cost.
In dollars.
JohndanR (
talk) 20:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Done I added this paragraph, recognizing that there seems to be cost data only through mid-December. There was vague news in late January that the Biden administration is going to change the name from OWS to something less "speedy", but obviously there are still OWS programs and costs underway, such as clinical trial support and pre-approval manufacturing for OWS recipients, like J&J and Novavax, i.e., there are ongoing costs yet to be revealed in 2021. Zefr ( talk) 00:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The table correctly notes that there was a pause for the AstraZeneca vaccine due to worries about blood clotting. A reader contacted Wikimedia to note that there was also a pause for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine but this is not mentioned. I think there should be.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Companies receiving research funding" section within the table, the notes for "Merck and IAVI" should read
two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 2021
the 1 is missing at the end of 2021 in the sentence which currently reads
two vaccine projects terminated by Merck, January 25, 202 James05345 ( talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Be bold and edit such an error yourself. Thanks. Zefr ( talk) 22:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Under the Timeline section, in the final sentence spell out “admin” for consistency and clarity. Dakamine ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph under the "Distribution" sub-heading: As of January 31, 2021, 63.7 million doses had been delivered pursuant to Operation Warp Speed, of a total of 200 million doses that Pfizer and Moderna were contractually obligated to provide by the end of March 2021. <ref> https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319<ref> 2601:147:C200:310:4088:463B:8C70:AF58 ( talk) 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)William Bell wumhenry@gmail.com
Done, with some editing. Zefr ( talk) 19:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Operation Warp Speed? (These companies are not listed as having received OWS benefits.) Drsruli ( talk) 04:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Joe Biden does not get credit for operation warpspeed. Why are you posting this lie? 108.18.209.172 ( talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:
Nowhere in the source material does it state, as WP does, that distribution depended on proof of “safe and effective”, this seems to be a case of editorializing by the editors. petrarchan47 คุ ก 14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Are we not saying this anymore or something? 222.108.156.194 ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)