This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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 |
Re this I think we need to be extremely wary of reporting the efficacy figures. It's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim without available WP:MEDRS sourcing, and there is amply and growing sourcing suspecting the Lancet figures may be problematic. If mentioned at all I think we need to frame this by the doubts, though that represents a sourcing challenge. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 04:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Have good published sources raised such concerns about the other vaccines though?No, as far as I know. But PubPeer is not a published source, it is a forum. This article in The Lancet is better. It could be mentioned alongside the efficacy results to provide a complete picture with the proper criticism.
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)
How does the source citation 16 in any way correlate to the purported claim of typing errors currently in quotation marks in the efficacy section? The quoted text is not present. FrostedLilly ( talk) 03:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, citation 37 FrostedLilly ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the lead included key information including how effective and safe the vaccine is, what confidence we have in the assessment and why it has not been approved by the WHO. I came to this article after reading about a case where a nurse in Toronto received this vaccine and found it was not recognized by his employers. [3] It's not clear from the contents where this information is in the article.
While the lead says that there is "absence of robust scientific research confirming safety and efficacy," it doesn't say what the findings were in preliminary studies, whether those studies were properly carried out, or what additional information we have after extensive use of the vaccine.
TFD ( talk) 15:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it really important to write about these speculations fueled by state-run Russia media? E.g. [5] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, so this article has public opinion polls on "the Russian vaccine".
Problem is, it uses the word "Russian" and does not account for the fact the COVID was a novel virus in 2019-2020; creating a out-of-place context.
I don't say it should be deleted ASAP although I would, pointing at the policy of WP:NEWS, but rather, it should elaborathed in a more intricate fashion how the public was really sceptical in 2020, but got less sceptical in 2021.
I do believe the archive of this very discussion page gives the impression needed to fathom the idea of initial "radical" scepticism towards the very idea of creating a "vaccine" (vaccine candidate, emergency vaccine etc.) in under a year after discovering COVID-19.
81.89.66.133 (
talk) 07:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Given how much of a furor the vaccine was back in its early days, the article sure lacks a beautiful gallery. Here are some ideas to look for:
Hope my opinion on the look helps. 81.89.66.133 ( talk) 07:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Just came across this article, and the title Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine
seems slightly odd to me. The article doesn’t indicate that the vaccine is known by this extended name, with the lede only referring to it as Sputnik V
and Gam-COVID-Vac
. This originally lead me to think that the text COVID-19 vaccine
might be for disambiguation (and should have been in parentheses); however, given that
Sputnik V redirects to this article, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Because of this, I wonder if it the page should be moved to
Sputnik V.
All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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 |
Re this I think we need to be extremely wary of reporting the efficacy figures. It's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim without available WP:MEDRS sourcing, and there is amply and growing sourcing suspecting the Lancet figures may be problematic. If mentioned at all I think we need to frame this by the doubts, though that represents a sourcing challenge. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 04:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Have good published sources raised such concerns about the other vaccines though?No, as far as I know. But PubPeer is not a published source, it is a forum. This article in The Lancet is better. It could be mentioned alongside the efficacy results to provide a complete picture with the proper criticism.
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)
How does the source citation 16 in any way correlate to the purported claim of typing errors currently in quotation marks in the efficacy section? The quoted text is not present. FrostedLilly ( talk) 03:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, citation 37 FrostedLilly ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the lead included key information including how effective and safe the vaccine is, what confidence we have in the assessment and why it has not been approved by the WHO. I came to this article after reading about a case where a nurse in Toronto received this vaccine and found it was not recognized by his employers. [3] It's not clear from the contents where this information is in the article.
While the lead says that there is "absence of robust scientific research confirming safety and efficacy," it doesn't say what the findings were in preliminary studies, whether those studies were properly carried out, or what additional information we have after extensive use of the vaccine.
TFD ( talk) 15:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it really important to write about these speculations fueled by state-run Russia media? E.g. [5] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, so this article has public opinion polls on "the Russian vaccine".
Problem is, it uses the word "Russian" and does not account for the fact the COVID was a novel virus in 2019-2020; creating a out-of-place context.
I don't say it should be deleted ASAP although I would, pointing at the policy of WP:NEWS, but rather, it should elaborathed in a more intricate fashion how the public was really sceptical in 2020, but got less sceptical in 2021.
I do believe the archive of this very discussion page gives the impression needed to fathom the idea of initial "radical" scepticism towards the very idea of creating a "vaccine" (vaccine candidate, emergency vaccine etc.) in under a year after discovering COVID-19.
81.89.66.133 (
talk) 07:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Given how much of a furor the vaccine was back in its early days, the article sure lacks a beautiful gallery. Here are some ideas to look for:
Hope my opinion on the look helps. 81.89.66.133 ( talk) 07:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Just came across this article, and the title Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine
seems slightly odd to me. The article doesn’t indicate that the vaccine is known by this extended name, with the lede only referring to it as Sputnik V
and Gam-COVID-Vac
. This originally lead me to think that the text COVID-19 vaccine
might be for disambiguation (and should have been in parentheses); however, given that
Sputnik V redirects to this article, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Because of this, I wonder if it the page should be moved to
Sputnik V.
All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)