Pfizer Halves Covid-19 Vaccine Shipments For 2020 Due To Supply-Chain Problems (axios.com) 57
"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.
"[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.
Is this why CEO of Pfizer sold $5.6M in stock? (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Yes, fucktard, that's exactly what was said, that somehow the Pfizer managers don't coordinate announcements and their stock sales. Only stupid senile bitches like you believe this kind of BS.
Incidentally, that's why you get fucked in every hole :)
The funny part is you said that and didn't even get close to my position. You're trying to find the hole, but you're just fucking the knot in a tree. Put your glasses on "or something."
You're so dumb, you think all those smart people who disagree with you must believe the exact opposite of what you said. No, moron, you're just wrong, you can be wrong in any direction. Knowing that I know you're wrong doesn't tell you shit about anything except that you should re-weight your shit.
That's what it means wh
Re: (Score:2)
No, YOU are an idiot. The stock went up since the announcement, so wouldn't he have scheduled the sale to be after it goes up? He missed out on bigger profits. Dumbass.
Pfizer stock rose 15% on the day of the announcement. The CEO made an extra $700k from that stock increase. The stock dropped right back down and took nearly three weeks of continuing good news to get back up to the Nov 9 close.
The CEO didn't have a crystal ball to know how the stock would fluctuate in the months after his announcement. But it would be obvious to him that the stock would rise right after the announcement. He took the extra money on the table by announcing when he did, and it allowed him to
Re:Is this why CEO of Pfizer sold $5.6M in stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
that is up the courts to judge
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:1)
Surely that video had been introduced in a court of law then, yes? No? Well then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:2, Insightful)
State Senate hearing is not a court of law. Until it is accepted as evidence in a court of law, its worthless, just like every other video and "sworn affidavit" that they have failed to produce in court under oath.
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully support investigat8any true reports of coordinated, willful fraud. But they have been unable to provide any evidence of that being the case.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I fully support investigat8any true reports of coordinated, willful fraud. But they have been unable to provide any evidence of that being the case.
Did you watch that video???? In addition, how are testimonies under oath and sworn affidavits not evidence?
Meanwhile, the person in charge of Fulton County elections didn't show up for the hearing where the footage was presented. He "couldn't make it."
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:5, Insightful)
Court case after court case: "we are not alleging fraud".
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:2, Insightful)
And about your "bombshell" video: poll watchers were there for the counting. From the AJC:
"Among other things, they repeated a conspiracy theory that the stateâ(TM)s new voting system was designed to switch votes â" a claim disputed by the company that produced the system and by Georgia officials. They also showed video of Fulton County vote-counting they say showed suitcases of ballots being counted in secret after Republican poll monitors were sent home.
The county and the secretary of state have
Re: (Score:1)
So...is the Republican Secretary of State lying?
He might be. I mean if turns out he allowed Biden people to pull of a fraud like that under his nose, fair chance Trump supporters might string him up in the literal sense.
He would not be the first official to try to cover up malfeasance that he was not personally involved in but was responsible for preventing on his watch.
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh so democrats switched votes out from Trump to biden but didn't switch out the senate votes?
How the fsck does that make sense?
Every single case of so called fraud for trump fails when you look at the entire ballot that would get tossed.
Re: (Score:3)
So...is the Republican Secretary of State lying?
He might be. I mean if turns out he allowed Biden people to pull of a fraud like that under his nose, fair chance Trump supporters might string him up in the literal sense.
He would not be the first official to try to cover up malfeasance that he was not personally involved in but was responsible for preventing on his watch.
And yet another place where the argument falls apart. GA at the state level is run by Republicans. Republicans set up the voting and picked the voting/vote counting methods. The Voting implementation manager is Republican. The Secretary of State, Lt Gov, and Gov (who was Sec of State prior to running for Gov) are all Republican. The governor endorsed and was endorsed by Trump. So, they are all either incompetent, or part of some vast conspiracy to switch votes.
Or, and stay with me here, I know this is
Re: (Score:3)
I fully support investigat8any true reports of coordinated, willful fraud. But they have been unable to provide any evidence of that being the case.
Did you watch that video???? In addition, how are testimonies under oath and sworn affidavits not evidence?
Meanwhile, the person in charge of Fulton County elections didn't show up for the hearing where the footage was presented. He "couldn't make it."
Ooh, and another one:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump... [newsweek.com]
Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron, who was called to testify at the Georgia state Senate hearing by President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, could not confirm allegations that a video showing bags being "pulled from a table" by election workers contained fraudulent ballots when questioned by Democratic Senator Jen Jordan.
"Are you trying to say that, in the video, what you saw were ballots that were somehow not lawful, that weren't real, that weren't actually cast by registered voters in the state of Georgia?" Jordan asked Waldron during the hearing.
"We do have affidavits of people who trucked in ballots from out of state into other states," Waldron replied.
Jordan then asked Waldron to clarify if he was claiming that truckloads of ballots had been moved into Georgia.
"Not into Georgia," Waldron admitted.
They are literally watching videos and making shit up that they "think" is happening. Just like the video of the election worker transferring a report from one voting system to another that people claimed was changing votes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is definitely a conspiracy going on, and it's big.
Indeed, there is, and it is, and it is being perpetrated by Trump and his "legal" team. It is truly despicable. Luckily, it is also phenomenally incompetent.
Please don't feed the trolls (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't matter then that they got modded down. The discussion is still happening and the ideas are put out there. If it keeps up a certain segment of the population decides there must be *something* there.
When you see these kind of trolls downmod and move on.
Don't mod me up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Should be a Slashdot story (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/a... [google.com]
Let's see if Giuliani even files that case. My guess is it ends up about like Powells unleashing the kraken.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the hearing where Giuliani audibly shit himself? I'd expect nothing less from a $20k a day attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because video of someone moving a box isn't all that interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story. Now it would be really relevant if this happened twice. You know, given how Georgia had a recount that found no significant differences to the main count so far.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool story. Now it would be really relevant if this happened twice. You know, given how Georgia had a recount that found no significant differences to the main count so far.
Well obviously the recount still counted these votes because they had already been injected into the vote pool :p
UK contract (Score:3)
Probably because the UK has a contract and already approved it. So yeah.
Who is the higher bidder? (Score:2)
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?
"for 2020" (Score:2)
Why don't you just say "for the next three weeks". 2020 is almost over and they are only just now really shipping anything.
Important bottleneck (Score:2)
With ramped up prod, will help different vaccines? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
hmmm... (Score:1)