Talk:CoronaVac

Legal Status

We need to change legal status of the vaccine since Turkey granted emergency use authorization to CoronoVac. Here is the official source from Reuters : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-turkey-vaccine/turkey-grants-emergency-authorization-to-sinovacs-coronavac-anadolu-idUSKBN29I29F Ois bende (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry, very new to this, but it seems to me that deeming this article as "low importance" is off the mark. When I look at the vaccine efforts, this seems to be the most progressed, and reading this article I'm not getting all information that I would want. Instead, I'm having to resort to watching youtube videos and poorly translated articles - which means I'm not getting the quality information that Wikipedia has the ability of delivering. Can we please up the priority of this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.12.175 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, providing content is supported by sources that are WP:RS. Go ahead. Zefr (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for picture

Can someone put a free-use picture of Coronavac into the infobox? Not sure which ones are copyrighted. Albertaont (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Request more recomended-usage info

Is this a two-dose vaccine? jimswen (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this, which says two doses: https://www.drugs.com/news/chinese-covid-19-vaccine-coronavac-appears-safe-effective-94087.html jimswen (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Update on Indonesia

There is an update for CoronaVac use in Indonesia. Officials said that the two-dose vaccine will be free for all Indonesian citizens. https://apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-indonesia-coronavirus-pandemic-joko-widodo-3ff30c85dc6943e2a06db470a9d04931 Adhiwangsa (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Politicization

Wrapped up and summarized the whole "Bolsonaro–Doria vaccine war" news cycle in CoronaVac#Politicization to better handle WP:RECENTISM and provide a more encyclopedic perspective. Normchou ^💬 17:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The articles sector, as presented, provides an approach to the reader, but I would like to contribute with some considerations. This minor news <https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-drug-agency-anvisa-accuses-china-of-being-ambiguous-on-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-349963> presents a good analysis that indirectly refers to the specific case of politicization mentioned above. Governor Dorian hoped to guarantee access to the vaccine in the race for doses. He asked for funds from the national government, which was vetoed by President Bolsonaro, since the vaccine had not yet been approved by ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency). This event polarized opinions about Dorian being a savior or opportunist and Bolsonaro a responsible manager or political saboteur for Dorian. It is only my opinion, although this is really present in news, I believe that refering to the expectations of some about the presidential race or refering as "mocking" the comment about 50% questionable efficacy results doesn't seem to fit well in the encyclopedic perspective. 'Dwrosa' 02:10, 07 April 2021 (UTC)

Results of trial in Brazil

In the reference https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2021/01/coronavac-tem-eficacia-geral-de-504-no-estudo-feito-pelo-butantan.shtml one can find the data available on 4653 patients having received the vaccin and 4599 having received the placebo. There were 85 cases of infection in the vaccinated group versus 167 in the placebo group, 7 symptomatic cases in the vaccinated group versus 31 in the placebo group, and 0 cases of severe infection in the vaccinated group versus 7 in the placebo group.Hill~frwiki (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

See also section removal

I propose removing the "See also" section. It currently contains a wikilink to COVID-19 vaccinewhich is already wikilinked in the lead section of the article advice of MOS:NAVLIST and a "randomly" select links to specific uubset of Covid-19 vaccine candidates. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

I want to suggest change infobox drug "vaccine_type = Inactivated" see Template:Infobox drug#Vaccines_(type=vaccine) 136.158.33.44 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also add "Category:Inactivated vaccines" below section categories. 136.158.33.44 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Gaioa (T C L) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected request: add category

Pleased add Category:inactivated vaccines, which is clearly applicable from the article text and sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please assist to add the efficacy information of CoronaVac

The article is protected so I'm unable to edit. Please assist to add below information regarding the efficacy:

"On February 16, 2021, the Hong Kong Vaccine Advisory Expert Committee held a press conference in which the convenor, Liu Zexing, disclosed information on the phase III clinical trial data of CoronaVac listed as below:"

Group	Average efficacy of CoronaVac	95% confidence interval of efficacy
Age 18 to 59	50.66%	37.75% to 62.11%
Age 60 or above	51.11%	-166.93% to 91.04%

Thanks.--Landsonmars (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please insert the year to all dates in the article

Please insert the year for all dates mentioned in the article, such as in the "Market and deployment" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.175.118 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps relatedly, this section might read a little better if the dated items were arranged chronologically. Or arranged in some other manner that looked more organised than at present. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

In the efficacy section, it is wrongly stated "The overall efficacy, including asymptomatic cases and symptomatic cases not requiring medical assistance (WHO grade 2), was 50.38%". The primary endpoint of Butantan's trial did not include asymptomatic cases, only symptomatic ones (from mild, moderate and severe). The previously reported 78% efficacy is about symptomatic cases that required medical assistance.

Change "The overall efficacy, including asymptomatic cases and symptomatic cases not requiring medical assistance (WHO grade 2), was 50.38%" to "The overall efficacy, which included all symptomatic (mild, moderate and severe) cases, was 50.38%. Suggested reference: Anvisa's presentation available in the link: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-anvisa/2021/confira-materiais-da-reuniao-extraordinaria-da-dicol/1-apresentacao-ggmed-coronavac.pdf Felipejack (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Albertaont has fixed this for you. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Malaysia does not "manufacture" this Sinovac Covid vaccine (as Brazil will, for example). Earlier news articles had vague information with the word "manufacture". In fact, Malaysia's input is a simple Fill and finish, with the CoronaVac itself coming from China. Ref - https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/pharmaniaga-secures-14-million-vaccine-doses-sinovac-be-distributed-endmarch.

So remove "... and Malaysia.[29]" (in introduction)

And replace "In Malaysia, Pharmaniaga will manufacture fill and finish CoronaVac.[29]" (in Manufacture) with "In Malaysia, Pharmaniaga will "Fill And Finish" CoronaVac.. Samhu (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Samhu Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Please complete correction about Malaysian "manufacture" of CoronaVac.

Replace "In Malaysia, Pharmaniaga will manufacture fill and finish CoronaVac.[29]" (in Manufacture) with "In Malaysia, Pharmaniaga will "Fill And Finish" CoronaVac.".

Thanks, Samhu (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done(with updated reference dated 23 April 2021)

Samhu (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

CORONAVAC is not in North America, edit request on 17 April 2021

The Coronavac vaccine is not in North America, its in Central America and the islands nearby because USA and Canada use the Pfizer and Astrozeneca Vaccine and awaiting for Maderna Vaccine. North America does not want Asian Vaccine.

I know this because i live in Canada. 69.158.246.47 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed North America to Central America. USA's FDA has not received a submission from Sinovac.[1] Canada does not recognize Sinovac Coronavac.[2]

typo

"Phase III results from Brazil previously showned 50.7% efficacy" should be "showed"

Research on the Infectivity and immune escape of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant of interest Lambda on CoronaVac vaccinated people

Researchers seems to believe that the efficacy of CoronaVac drops significantly on the lambda variant https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259673v1 -- Kreyren (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Compared to the Wild type (lineage A), neutralization was decreased by 3.05-fold for the Lambda variant while it was 2.33-fold for the Gamma variant and 2.03-fold for the Alpha variant. This is not really a big change, see COVID-19 vaccine § Effect of neutralizing antibodies. More information on how the WHO relates neutralizing activity and efficacy in its weekly epidemiological update 49.[3] It's been known for some time that CoronaVac is quite effective against hospitalization, but not so much against mild symptomatic disease and asymptomatic infection, so it seems to me that this small change for Lambda doesn't really change its overall performance significantly. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Chile overcame the Delta variant. Now it’s racing to vaccinate kids

Chile overcame the Delta variant. Now it’s racing to vaccinate kids

https://ktvz.com/videos/2021/09/14/chile-overcame-the-delta-variant-now-its-racing-to-vaccinate-kids-2/

"Society and culture" section

The section "Economics" of the "Society and culture" section is just a list of dates and the number of doses sent to each country, with very few information on approvals. It should be better organized. --93.42.64.156 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"So much important stuff is missing"

There is no discussion of Coronavac's design, as an inactivated virus. The reason Pfizer, Merck, and U.S. and European governments invested in novel, untried vaccine designs was because of extensive research carried out between 2014 and 2016, much at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, with assistance from the Wuhan Institute. This showed inactivated viral vaccines didn't work against a mouse with a human ACE2 receptor that was infected with a mouse-adapted SARS virus plus a horseshoe-bat sourced spike protein. As of June 2021 no peer-reviewed data about the Chinese vaccine CoronoVac was published or submitted. In August 2021 BMJ published a study of 44,000 adults in Sao Paulo who got two doses of CoronaVac. It was 46.8% effective at preventing symptomatic disease. That's mediocre. This is a huge problem. 1.3 billion people in China are poorly vaccinated, and because of "zero tolerance", most have not been infected. The most likely candidates for immune escape are people who are poorly vaccinated or have had minor infections, because they mount an immune response, but not an effective one. This is reviwed in "Saad-Roy et al., Epidemiological and evolutionary considerations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing regimes, Science, 4/23/2021 Vol 372(6540): 363-370". In other words China is becoming a resevoir of potential variant evolution. The Chinese government must revaccinate its people with mRNA or DNA vaccines. Why is there no discussion of this?

' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

T Cell responses - data update required

The reference to CD8+ not being robust is based on existing knowledge of inactivated vaccines and their shortcomings in 2020. However more recent SARS-COV2 studies and real world monitoring have suggested otherwise. A comparative evaluative study between BNT162b2 (BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) in Hong Kong where the two are exclusively administered, found that although vaccination with BNT162b2 induces stronger humoral responses than CoronaVac, CoronaVac induces higher CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to the structural protein than BNT162b2.

Reference to the study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34820940/ Sonyhamster (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

duplicate section

Under 'effectiveness' the section starting with "In Brazil, a study was conducted" is entered twice. because of editing restrictions I can't fix this myself. 5.206.216.64 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, good catch! PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Error: "A recent study" is not "recent" forever.

There is an error in the beginning.

It says "A recent study jointly conducted by the LKS Faculty of Medicine [...]".

But obviously, every "recent" sometimes gets wrong as a description.

Therefore the sentence should be corrected, e.g. "As of 23 December 2021, a study jointly conducted by the LKS Faculty of Medicine [...]". 62.240.134.34 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That is now over 1 year old, so I am going to delete "recent" and provide a date. I think it may be contradicted by a study reported in The Lancet in October 2022. Perhaps some other editor more familiar with this topic can update that if appropriate.Tetsuo (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Economics

I'm not sure "Economics" is really an accurately descriptive heading for this section. A contract price is mentioned only in the case of Brazil. I'm not rushing to change the heading, because perhaps it is an aspirational heading, and economic data could be added as it becomes available. Or, should we endeavor to find a more appropriate heading that conveys the concept of geographical coverage/utilization?Tetsuo (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Also, a world map (similar to the authorizations map) showing what uptake or "market share" this vaccine has achieved in various regions of the world might be a useful addition to this article.Tetsuo (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Making this truth as clear as possible and very easy to add In.

Add this Edit, after the 7th or "final paragraph" of the introduction. As it's probably the most important information not being shown. That 3 doses of Sinovac is effective according to more recent studies last year.[4]

"In October 2022, a Hong Kong study has found that two doses of CoronaVac gave protection of only 64-to-75% for older adults. However an extra booster or a third dose of CoronaVac was able to raise the level of protection against Covid to about 98%, which is the same protection level seen with three doses of Pfizer."

Cite this NPR source that supports the study showing a third booster is effective. Thanks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/12/30/1143696652/chinas-covid-vaccines-do-the-jabs-do-the-job

BTStruth (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)