Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

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)

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)

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)

Nanoparticles?

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

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)

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)

The virus it uses as a vector is an adenovirus, which is nonenveloped, meaning it doesn't have a lipid envelope (unlike enveloped viruses, like the coronavirus). Which means the answer is no. 188.159.240.15 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Developer

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