Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Pfizer Halves Covid-19 Vaccine Shipments For 2020 Due To Supply-Chain Problems (axios.com) 57

Posted by BeauHD from the supply-and-demand dept.
"The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Pfizer is planning to cut their shipment of Covid-19 vaccines for 2020 in half due to supply-chain problems," writes Slashdot reader phalse phace. Axios (non-paywalled source) reports: The U.K. government has ordered 40 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine -- enough to inoculate some 20 million people. The companies now expect to ship 50 million vaccines by the end of 2020, per WSJ. "Based on current projections we expect to produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021," Pfizer spokesperson Kim Bencker told Axios.

"[S]caling up a vaccine at this pace is unprecedented, and we have made significant progress as we have moved forwards in the unknown," Bencker said. "And it's important to highlight that the outcome of the clinical trial was somewhat later than the initial projection requiring us to focus additional efforts on clinical trial production." Pfizer did not specify to the Journal what shortfalls over ingredients and raw materials -- which were sourced from Europe and the U.S. -- took place as production ramped up. For the record, Pfizer's vaccine has been shown to be more than 90% effective.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pfizer Halves Covid-19 Vaccine Shipments For 2020 Due To Supply-Chain Problems More

Pfizer Halves Covid-19 Vaccine Shipments For 2020 Due To Supply-Chain Problems

Comments Filter:

  • Is this why CEO of Pfizer sold $5.6M in stock? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The chairman and CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, sold $5.6 million worth of stock [npr.org] on the same day Pfizer announced that its experimental coronavirus vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective. The company's stock soared on the news.

    • Re:Is this why CEO of Pfizer sold $5.6M in stock? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday December 03, 2020 @09:32PM (#60792348)

      Did you comprehend the article you linked to?

      Bourla sold the stock as part of a stock-trading plan that aims to shield corporate executives from allegations of illegal insider trading. But these plans have become increasingly controversial, and the issue has taken on added urgency given the billions of dollars the government has promised Pfizer if its vaccine meets the approval of federal regulators.

      Bourla's sale of Pfizer stock was part of a trading plan set months in advance. Known as 10b5-1 plans, they essentially put stock trades on autopilot.

      In other words, it has nothing to do with what he knew or didn't know. Next conspiracy theory please.

      • Re:Is this why CEO of Pfizer sold $5.6M in stock? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poisonborz ( 2676611 ) on Friday December 04, 2020 @06:27AM (#60793168)
        The trading plan may have been set months in advance. However, the date of announcement could have been easily coordinated to match this date.
      • You wants new feelings ? add me. You won't bedisappointed! write me ==>> http://gg.gg/nd05z [gg.gg]
      • Another poster has already pointed out that he may have had insider information at the time that the plan was put in place in which case it was still insider trading. But more importantly, these plans are controversial because they are often setup in advance but then cancelled based on insider information thus skirting the law. The idea is that he sets the trade in advance and if the vaccine goes well, the trade executes. If he finds out there is an issue and he'd rather not sell, he cancels it. I'm not

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        Bourla's sale of Pfizer stock was part of a trading plan set months in advance. Known as 10b5-1 plans, they essentially put stock trades on autopilot. In other words, it has nothing to do with what he knew or didn't know. Next conspiracy theory please.

        The original AC is almost certainly correct that the press announcement in November was coordinated with the previously scheduled sale of Bourla's Pfizer stock. It is far less likely he knew the vaccine would be successful when he scheduled the stock sale originally, but that isn't the only way a CEO can manipulate the timing of his stock sales. It is unclear how much the CEO knew about Pfizer's ability to deliver the vaccine in early November, but it is very likely if they knew anything negative that it wo

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      He arranged for the shares to be sold when the stocks hit a certain price. This was before Pfizer made the announcement. He probably knew something when he made the arrangement however.

      • that is up the courts to judge

        • It's about as much up to the courts to judge as it is for them to judge how stupid your comment is. The shares were sold under a 10b5-1 plan filed with the SEC.

          Now if you're telling me that the CEO actually had determined that the drug was 90% effective months ago before before the trial was even done and filed his 10b5-1 with the knowledge of this future including the date of the announcement of the trial results and that you think a judge should decide that is legal, that I would be happy to explore with

  • UK contract (Score:3)

    by whitelabrat ( 469237 ) on Thursday December 03, 2020 @10:08PM (#60792424)

    Probably because the UK has a contract and already approved it. So yeah.

  • In other words someone made them a great offer on a large number of doses.
    However they had already taken orders on the whole lot. What to do?

  • Why don't you just say "for the next three weeks". 2020 is almost over and they are only just now really shipping anything.

  • One important bottleneck is the bottle, itself [bloomberg.com]—a truly vial problem.
  • This year was one of the few times I actually sought out a Flu vaccine, (and had some other while I was at it). In the past I did not bother with a Flu vaccine unless it was convenient, like work was giving them at the office. Or I had an unrelated doctor's appointment, and they said I could get a Flu shot that day.

    Since I have to go back for the second half of the other vaccine, I might get yet another. The world has become a bit disease ridden. So, with the other vaccines going unused, (because of vacci
    • The technology behind the mRNA vaccines is intended to allow more rapid response to future pandemics. Whether the production capacity created now will be maintained indefinitely depends on government action, I imagine. Otherwise when demand drops to normal, normal capitalism would have us dismantle the unused private capacity.

      • However, part of the reason it works for rapid response is that it's standardized. Most other vaccines use a bespoke process for each one. They should be able to create more mRNA vaccines that work like this one and can be produced from the same line.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      I think it's definitely going to help. The reason that the first vaccines to be approved all use genetic technology (either mRNA or transgenic adenoviruses) is that the designs for these vaccines eliminate the trial-and-error involved with traditional vaccine development. Within hours of the SARS-COV-2 genome being published, researchers had vaccines on the drawing board.

      There are a number of molecular biology technologies on the table besides mRNA that are just as precisely targeted but may be easier to

  • that's the coverstory, what probably really is going on: they found a flaw in the current batch and are trying to fix it before it becomes a real problem.... The vaccin will be useless anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close