Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 21 May 2022

COVID-19 vaccine side effects

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

COVID-19 vaccine side effects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this for deletion based on WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOPAGE. Let me state at the top that the question is not whether Misplaced Pages should provide information about adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Obviously, we should! The question is also not whether there exist sufficient sources to make a case for notability. There is a ton of coverage of nearly every aspect of the vaccine such that we could spin out a dozen more subtopics into their own article. This deletion discussion is about WP:NOPAGE and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:NPOVFACT). It's about whether this subject should be spun out from the main article. With all of the COVID-19 mis/disinformation going around regarding supposed side effects, it does not seem in the spirit of our policies and best practices to pull side effects out for special coverage.

Alexbrn redirected it yesterday, but the creator restored it. The creator seems to have some problems with WP:MEDRS which aren't worth getting into here except insofar as e.g. this article has a whole section on Tinnitus where the only MEDRS-compliant source has nothing to do with vaccines. I mention this not because deletion hinges on the current state of the article, but as a secondary point illustrating an aspect of the NPOV issue. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Medicine. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete this isn't encyclopedic as it's currently written and is completely WP:OR and WP:FRINGE nonsense. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I do wonder if the nominator read the Tinnitus section and the cited sources properly. The reason the MEDRS in that section doesn't mention vaccines is because sources are unsure whether the condition is caused by the vaccine or the COVID-19 disease itself. I myself have had tinnitus since my second vaccination, yet the sources linking it to vaccines do so only with Pfizer and Moderna, and I received AstraZeneca. Until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines, the MEDRS linking it to the disease seemed like a WP:BALANCE requirement to me, and that's why I added it. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear about your tinnitus. I know several people affected by it (unrelated to vaccines/covid), and know it can be really miserable sometimes. The thing is, until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines (or, preferably, reviews of said studies), we just shouldn't be including it. We're not trying to be an exhaustive resource of all possible medical information about covid -- we're trying to summarize the best, most reliable parts of the literature. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete in current form - I think it is certainly possible for WP to have such an article that rigorously uses WP:MEDRS suitable sources and does not engage in the sort of regurgitating speculation it currently does, which I agree infringes on WP:FRINGE and possibly WP:OR. If done carefully, I don't see that it is more of a POV fork than COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy could be, if not carefully written, as an example. At present, the only section that seems suitably referenced is on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which has it's own article (the lead of which has been copied into the article in question apparently without attribution). |→ Spaully   15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect Delete Massive WP:MEDRS errors. No reason to stand as a separate article from the vaccine articles. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep We have an article on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which is just one of several reported COVID-19 vaccine side effects. The subject is clearly WP:NOTABLE by the sheer number of RS covering it significantly, including the WHO joint statement the WHO and ICMRA put out just yesterday . As the statement says, the ​​global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of public interest in vaccines focusing on the ​​the development of vaccines and their regulatory review and safety monitoring, that have led to some people to express concerns about getting vaccinated, delay getting vaccinated or even be strongly opposed to vaccination. It is only prudent to cover these concerns, and perhaps rename the article to COVID-19 vaccine safety, but deleting it would be a classic case of WP:POVDELETION. Since AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, Praxidicae and Spaully's WP:OR or WP:FRINGE concerns can be addressed and resolved in the article TP. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know that it's "clearly WP:NOTABLE", because WP:NOTABLE says that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It is not enough to have "the sheer number of RS covering it significantly"; one must additionally have agreement from editors that it's best to handle this on a separate, stand-alone page.

  Why do you believe that this information needs to be on a separate, stand-alone page instead of being at COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, I created this article to go into detail that might be WP:UNDUE in the vaccine article, but I am changing my !vote here and will work on the vaccine page. The prelude to this AfD was a VPP discussion about MEDRS , where I was accused of writing this article with a POV , claiming also that the tinnitus section is WP:SYNTH, when really a MEDRS was added to WP:BALANCE a NEWSORG report. I don't myself believe tinnitus is a side effect of COVID-19 as I received the AZ vaccine, though there are qualified experts who say it needs to be researched, and I don't see why that needs to be sourced to a MEDRS, or a review article in particular. I will try adding it to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best approach.

The reason that we love a good review article is because it helps us figure out what's important enough to mention. A long list of "somebody claimed this, therefore we should investigate this" isn't the goal.

This is going to be long, but I can't think of a better way to explain it. Forget about vaccines for a moment. Here is a partial list of what I've heard people claim were the causes of Breast cancer:

• Having kids
• Not having kids
• Having too many kids
• Using antiperspirant (I don't think she really believed this, but this story was making the rounds back then, and newly diagnosed people grasp at anything)
• Wearing a bra
• Not wearing a bra
• Eating the wrong things (too much sugar/carbs, too much protein, not enough vegetable juice)
• Losing too much blood in an accident
• Weak immune system
• Not being a kind enough person (this came from an extraordinarily kind woman)
• Divine punishment (for getting divorced, if memory serves; she survived)
• Divine blessing (for religious reasons, she preferred dying of cancer to either divorcing her husband or continuing to live with his abuse; she died)
• Family history

Do you know what I haven't ever heard any woman claim about her breast cancer? Drinking alcohol (~15% of breast cancer cases), being overweight or obese (~10% of breast cancer cases), and being an older woman (biggest cause of all).

Almost all of these claims except the religious ones have been researched: there is an optimal (large) number of kids to prevent breast cancer; antiperspirant, bras, physical injuries, and attitude/personality are irrelevant; diet matters (but primarily in the "don't eat too much" sense and not nearly as much as not drinking alcohol); and a big family history is a very big deal, but no family history guarantees nothing.

IMO Misplaced Pages should not have an indiscriminate list of "someone claimed this once" content, or even a list of "all the things that someone once claimed and that somebody else mentioned in the news". IMO Misplaced Pages should instead have the broad outlines. In the case of breast cancer, that means writing that there isn't much that an individual woman can realistically do to prevent breast cancer, beyond not drinking alcohol and trying to maintain a basic level of health/fitness. This is the viewpoint that you will get if you look for a review article or a book. It is not the view you will get if you try to chase down stories about individuals who might or might not have gotten The advantage of these bigger, better sources is that they can sum up all the little "stories" and then we can write an actual encyclopedia article that presents the big picture without a bunch of trivia.

Okay, back on track:

What Misplaced Pages needs for vaccines is what approximately it needs about the causes of breast cancer. It needs statements of larger, generally accepted effects, along with explanations that place that information in proper context (e.g., this is common but mild; this is rare but captured the public's imagination during the pandemic; this is typical of any vaccine, etc.), and not a list of things that somebody once claimed, things that somebody might want to research some day, or even a complete list of things that are both scientifically possible and mentioned more than once in the news. What we really need is an encyclopedia article, not a laundry list of all verifiable allegations. A Misplaced Pages article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. "Summary" means that you don't say as much as you could, and "accepted" means that you don't include speculative claims (like "someone claimed this and someone else said it should be research"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, thanks for the advice. You are being much more courteous than Alexbrn who just disparaged my WP:MEDRSNOT essay to Jayron32 , as if there is actually a WP:MEDRS issue in this WP:AFD and that I am trying to make a WP:POINT about - as they claim. I agree with you that we shouldn't list side effects in an indiscriminate fashion, and that's why I didn't include the brewing controversy around the mRNA-LNP linked inflammation , but the Tinnitus linked side effect is in fact covered by review articles . As such, all side-effects listed in this article are covered by MEDRS, and I actually copied most of them from the vaccine article, so the WP:BLAR !votes here and are really not justified.

At the heart of the MEDRS/MEDRSNOT debate is WP:RECENTISM, and whether INCLUSIONIST editors like myself should be allowed to cite NEWSORG reports on BMI subjects with attribution, and BALANCE them appropriately while waiting on MEDRS for factual statements. The possible Tinnitis linked side effect citing NBC and MedPageToday quotes Mayo Clinic vaccinologist Gregory Poland who simply called for more research into it, yet I keep on hearing that MEDRS restricts us from including his view. Even without the review articles I showed you, do you really think that quoting this expert calling for research into this possible side effect is so bad, or a violation of MEDRS? And even if you deem it as UNDUE, do you see any justification for the nasty vitriol directed against me here and the bilious temperament on VPP?

Even Bakkster Man, who previously reported me at WP:AE for citing an RS that in turn cites a preprint, purportedly in violation of WP:PREPRINT, but which resulted in a TBAN on COVID-19 origins for me anyway - is accusing me below of WP:GAMING for juxtaposing the NEWSORG piece with a MEDRS paper that I BALANCED it with. Common sense dictates that WP:PARITY applies to subjects high up on the WP:FRINGE spectrum, and not lower down on subjects where there is uncertainty, like Tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect, and the topic I'm banned from editing and discussing. Only editors with a very strong POV, and the air of an WP:UNBLOCKABLE can get away with perverting WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS with impunity, and this has to stop. I am now going to file a WP:CR and post it on WP:AN to make sure that this AFD doesn't interfere further with the VPP discussion on the proper application of MEDRS. Please join us in the discussion there. CutePeach (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to the vaccine article. I'm not qualified to say if the contents are good enough or not. I have read enough to know that COVID-19 vaccine misinformation had thrived because pro-science public health people don't talk about the actual (rare) side effects and have sometimes gone for simple narratives (vaccines are perfect, no size effects kind of simplicity). Content about side effects, if accurate, is a good thing. I therefore think a redirect is better than a delete. CT55555 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree we should have a redirect. I'd just argue that, given the current content of the article, a "delete and redirect" would be preferable. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    Without having properly assessed the article, I take your comments at face value and find that agreeable. CT55555 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect (/delete). Currently this topic is handled at COVID-19 vaccine where it fits well per WP:NOPAGE. If the "Adverse events" section there becomes big enough then a consensus to WP:SPLIT may form in the usual way. Even then, that is unlikely since the adverse events differ per vaccine type. There is no need to have a standalone article, and it is particularly unfortunate the current version is a WP:POINT-making exercise about using unreliable sources for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blank and Redirect back to the vaccine article. I agree that a properly contextualized standalone article is possible, but this is not that, and for the time being we have much better information, presented with better context, back at the original article. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect - looks very much like a NPOV-violation fork to evade MEDRS limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
• Delete, and redirect if necessary. A discussion of side effects of the various COVID vaccines should certainly exist in Misplaced Pages. (And adverse effects are already presented in the articles on various vaccines.)
  I am less persuaded that a 'laundry list' or grab bag of symptoms and effects for multiple different pharmaceutical products is entirely helpful.
  I am completely unpersuaded that even if such a list could be of benefit, that this version of it would serve as a good base, for reasons already discussed above.
  The way that the {{main}} template is incorrectly used to link to tinnitus and viral cardiomyopathy suggests, at best, an unclear vision for how this article would or could be integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect for most of the reasons above regarding weak sourcing for the contents that doesn't already have a standalone article (POVFORK, POINTy, and NOPAGE particularly). Page creator's only edit to the COVID-19 vaccine article is this one adding a reference to the fork (rather than attempting to improve the main article section, which has a section tag to expand it). The section on Tinnitus seems indicative of my concern: non-MEDRS sources saying "people speculate that the vaccine might cause Tinnitus", followed by a MEDRS systemic review and meta-analysis saying "COVID-19 has a correlation with Tinnitus, at an ER of 4.5%, CIs: 0.012–0.153". Much of the data comes from Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (and similar) reports, without the necessary context that raw submitted data is not reliable (saying The US CDC acknowledged reports of tinnitus..., potentially implying that the 'other reports' in MEDRS sources are less reliable, even as the cited source indicates rates of neurological adverse events were far higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination). It comes across as WP:GAMING, using the MEDRS source as cover for the inappropriate BMI claim about the vaccine. A similar GAMING-adjacent argument is made above, paraphrased: "embolisms have their own article with strong sourcing, so this one should exist for other conditions with only weak sourcing". Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete POV Fork. (Throwing away the current content and moving the content from COVID-19_vaccine#Adverse_events to this article would also be an acceptable solution.) ApLundell (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned that the topic that the reader is really interested in while reader this article is Safety of the COVID vaccine and so this article is inclined to mislead a reader. Safety of the COVID vaccine is a natural part of the COVID-19 vaccine page. With that said, I can perhaps see an argument for an article on Controversy surrounding the COVID vaccine that looks at things from a more sociological / current affairs angle because this material might swamp the COVID-19 vaccine... but considering that this section is quite short in the article, I don't see that this is an issue. Do we think that thinking about "what the reader is likely to actually want" is a valid mode of argument. I am aware that at times this can almost become paternalistic and might be better handled with prominent "See also's" early on in the page. Kind of "if you actually want the facts about the safety go here, otherwise read on". Talpedia (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm oversimplifying to emphasise my point, but...I don't think we should be looking at it through the lens of what the reader might want as I expect that is often something polarised like "this vaccine is perfect, no side effects at all" or "this vaccine is the work of the devil" I don't think we should help people looking for over simple answers, and we should present issues as complex as they are, as clearly as we can. CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that that effect is real, I suppose I view this as being fixed by "what the reader is trying to find plus important context". The issue is if we *aren't* optimizing for what the reader is trying to find, might we be preventing the reader from asking legitimate questions and trying to influence what they are allowed to ask? Perhaps too philosophical a question. But in medical literature I often see things like "what are the potential side effects" turned into "which of the side effects can be blamed on patients" for example. I suspect, as ever, the answer will be "if in doubt follow the literature" Talpedia (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  To make your discussion more concrete, look at WP:NOPAGE. That's really what this is about: separate page or combined? A strong argument for combination is this consideration: Does other information provide needed context? Having a list of side effects without talking about the benefits is unlike anything else we do in medicine. It's always a risk-benefit discussion, so keeping the risks separate from the benefits hurts both discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I guess it all comes down to context, which sort of assumes why someone is likely to be reading a page. This risks descending off topic but COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy does just list all of the non existent side effects while ignoring the actual adverse events. So I would say only showing one side of the risk benefit trade off is quite standard ("all of these things are lies, so it must be safe right?") . But yeah, I'm pro redirect on this one, but might be in favour of page along the lines of Controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccine from a more sociological angle should someone have the desire to make one Talpedia (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blank and Redirect. I tried to fix the glaring omissions and add balance in the hearing loss section but that leaves much of the text in need of a rewrite. It would be preferable to expand the section of the vaccine article. --mikeu 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• blank and redirect per mikeu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)
• Delete. COVID vaccines are different in their mechanisms of action and thus in their adverse effect profiles. Individual adverse effect profiles are probably best placed on the pages of individual vaccines. COVID vaccines as such are not a pharmacologically homogenous class the way we can talk about e.g. the adverse effects of COX inhibitors (which are all quite similar). Phrasing the article like this invites WP:FRINGE content and endless (and pointless) debate. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates