[News] Pfizer says early data signals COVID-19 vaccine is 90% effective

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

No you got the question. So I get the vaccine and could get the virus and not be aware.

Yes, but it's unlikely. Even so, if you were an asymptomatic case, it wouldn't matter because people who ARE protected by the vaccine wouldn't be at risk.

Again, nothing is certain, but the likelihood of being asymptomatic after getting a vaccine that is 90% effective...well you're probably looking at a very tiny segment of the population.

The more people vaccinated the better. This creates the herd immunity so many have referred to through natural transmission, but without the risk of severe illness or death. Once you have enough people vaccinated, the rates of transmission will plummet or go away entirely. There will always be a handful of breakthrough cases no matter how effective a vaccine is.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

I believe for the year he is misconstruing that Pfizer is predicting 20 million vaccines (40 million or so /2 per patient) by end of 2020 not their annual production.

He does sound ridiculous.

OK, that makes a bit more sense. He's still completely wrong though. As of last week, AstraZeneca was only on track to have 4M doses available for the UK by the end of the year; I'm not sure where he's getting the idea that there will be hundreds of millions of doses ready to go. In fact, the UK is estimating that by the end of the year they'll have more doses of the Pfizer vaccine on hand than they will the AstraZeneca one:

The U.K. is struggling to stock up on supplies of a potentially game-changing coronavirus vaccine, a top government official has said.
Kate Bingham, chair of the U.K. Vaccine Taskforce, said only 4 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot will be available by the end of the year, far fewer than the 30 million that were due to be ready by September. AstraZeneca declined to comment.

Speaking to a Parliament’s science committee, Bingham estimated the U.K. would have 4 million doses of the Oxford vaccine available to deploy by the end of the year, and as many as 10 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/delays-h...pply-1.1517430

[darockwilder]

Originally Posted by IGGYFORMVP

Anyone happen to know what companies make ultra cold freezers for healthcare?

I'm sure they are all owned by the same group that was involved with the DOMINION voting machines! Pelosi and all that bunch. Well, I'm sure some people could believe that.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

For the regular annual flu doesn’t like 50% of the population get it?

From what I've heard, 50% would be a very good year (like this year) but normally it's only around 20-30%.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by opendoor

OK, that makes a bit more sense. He's still completely wrong though. As of last week, AstraZeneca was only on track to have 4M doses available for the UK by the end of the year; I'm not sure where he's getting the idea that there will be hundreds of millions of doses ready to go. In fact, the UK is estimating that by the end of the year they'll have more doses of the Pfizer vaccine on hand than they will the AstraZeneca one:






https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/delays-h...pply-1.1517430

Interesting. Great context, thanks.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by IGGYFORMVP

Anyone happen to know what companies make ultra cold freezers for healthcare?

I believe the only company that provides coast to coast service is https://andlauerhealthcare.com/ one of their platforms are credo boxes to transport sensitive drugs.

I talked about them in the stocks thread a while back thinking they'll be the #1 distributor of a vaccine across Canada

[DoubleK]

Is there a stage of the clinical trials that challenge the efficacy of the vaccine? Like try to infect a host who has been vaccinated?

[photon]

The UK is planning to have a human challenge trial:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4

But I don't think it's very common from what I've read.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Is there a stage of the clinical trials that challenge the efficacy of the vaccine? Like try to infect a host who has been vaccinated?

Just send them on White House tours.

[You Need a Thneed]

This is my line of thinking, someone correct me if I’m wrong:

Vaccine starts coming out, and takes a while to get out to everyone. However, once most of the vulnerable population, and the front line workers get vaccinated, I think that hospitalization and (especially) death rates should start dropping significantly, to the point where the world could be much more “normal”. Many restrictions could be taken off early, with most restrictions being able to taken off well before reaching actual herd immunity.

***This is only my speculation***

[JohnnyB]

I had been wondering why it was that Phizer just announced their vaccine news the weekend following the election of Biden, despite them already having manufactured a large amount of the vaccine and prepared delivery supply chains for it. Turns out the CEO had a planned stock sale since back in August, selling off 130,000 shares, and timed the announcement to take advantage of the surge in price along with a few other senior execs. Still, interesting choices involved in the planning of the timing for the stock sale and announcement to happen just after the election in the US.

[Nufy]

Maybe a naive question...

But is there any type of knowledge sharing amongst the pharma companies happening in regards to the vaccine ?

Or is each company forging its own path independently...

You would think a combined effort would speed up development.

[FlamesAddiction]

I wouldn't be surprised if they did wait, which is fine if they did. Big Pharma companies should avoid doing things that can affect the democratic process.

The timing of the news has no bearing on the timeline for a vaccine and serves no purpose other than informing the public on progress and perhaps stock prices.

Why would Trump, or any other politician expect the news to be released just prior to an election? Especially since the news had nothing to do with them, but you know would have been politicized in one candidate's favour?

Personally, I would have been more suspicious of the news if they did release it just before the election, as I am sure others would have been. From a business perspective, it makes sense if they did wait.

Maybe it's the tin-foil hat inside of me, but anytime major news of public interest is released leading up to an election, it makes me more skeptical.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I had been wondering why it was that Phizer just announced their vaccine news the weekend following the election of Biden, despite them already having manufactured a large amount of the vaccine and prepared delivery supply chains for it. Turns out the CEO had a planned stock sale since back in August, selling off 130,000 shares, and timed the announcement to take advantage of the surge in price along with a few other senior execs. Still, interesting choices involved in the planning of the timing for the stock sale and announcement to happen just after the election in the US.

Sounds like insider trading.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Sounds like insider trading.

It's not a pure trade, because the way things work there he has set dates for the sale of the shares (and not a set price). It's obviously questionable to know that Monday is the day, so you put out the 90% effectivity release before the open that morning though. I'd imagine the SEC would be taking a long look.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's not a pure trade, because the way things work there he has set dates for the sale of the shares (and not a set price). It's obviously questionable to know that Monday is the day, so you put out the 90% effectivity release before the open that morning though. I'd imagine the SEC would be taking a long look.

And I'd imagine that as long as the SEC is taking that look the delivery of their vaccines keep mysteriously dropping lower and lower on the priority list...

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Sounds like insider trading.

Yeah, my guesses based on what I've read is that he probably expected a general market upturn after the election and knew the company was in with a decent shot to have a vaccine back when he made the bet in August, then likely withheld info about them already manufacturing the vaccine and setting up the supply chain until it was going to maximize share price at the time of the preplanned sale.

It's also possible that they held back the news because they didn't want Trump to get a boost before the election, maybe also thinking that a Biden win would spur the markets.

Whatever did happen, it's hard not to be suspicious of the timing as manipulated to achieve some objective that is not purely corporate interest.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

And I'd imagine that as long as the SEC is taking that look the delivery of their vaccines keep mysteriously dropping lower and lower on the priority list...

Well the real devils advocate argument is along those lines. These guys are on the verge of saving the global economy trillions (?), so who really cares if they got paid?

(And it's not the test at all, but Pfizer shares didn't rocket up Monday and in fact gained a lot less than a pile of others)

[Enoch Root]

Pfizer has been pretty flat for a year and a half, and has hardly gained in 5 years. 130,000 shares is likely a tiny portion of the CEO's holdings. He announced the sale a while ago, which is standard procedure, and he likely sells similar amounts every year.

The bigger thing here though, is that he didn't need to wait until Monday to get the pop. If Pfizer had that news to share, they could have done so a week, or a month earlier, and it would make little difference for his sale of stock. Why wait until the week you're selling, causing suspicion of your actions? Why not make the announcement earlier?

This is a nothing-burger.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Pfizer has been pretty flat for a year and a half, and has hardly gained in 5 years. 130,000 shares is likely a tiny portion of the CEO's holdings. He announced the sale a while ago, which is standard procedure, and he likely sells similar amounts every year.

The bigger thing here though, is that he didn't need to wait until Monday to get the pop. If Pfizer had that news to share, they could have done so a week, or a month earlier, and it would make little difference for his sale of stock. Why wait until the week you're selling, causing suspicion of your actions? Why not make the announcement earlier?

This is a nothing-burger.

Umm he sold 2/3 of his holdings!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pfi...sale-1.5798089