Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Angelo]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

We aren't. You are. There's a very distinct difference.

Many people are. It made the news of that very basis.

If you want to ignore the shady culture in big pharma that is your prerogative but for people who were skeptical about the vaccine and the way it was rushed through it further erodes confidence and most medical experts and governments will tell the vaccine needs mass buy in.

The optics of CEOs signing contracts that benefits themselves financially and gives them a self-interest to rush it through and the history of big phara combined with that will further erode trust and further damage uptake.

[Seaney]

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Sure tell you what we'll do.

We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.

In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.


How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?

Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.

[TabClear]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

[trueblue1234]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

We aren't. You are. There's a very distinct difference.

Many people are. It made the news of that very basis.

If you want to ignore the shady culture in big pharma that is your prerogative but for people who were skeptical about the vaccine and the way it was rushed through it further erodes confidence and most medical experts and governments will tell the vaccine needs mass buy in.

The optics of CEOs signing contracts that benefits themselves financially and gives them a self-interest to rush it through and the history of big phara combined with that will further erode trust and further damage uptake.

It made the news, and then the full story came out and there hardly anything about it since. If you think there was actually something in it, it would be one of the main news stories. But we all know, it's not.

The bit in bold you should just cut and paste. When the rest of your points get debunked (And they have been, no matter how many times you keep posting them). You seem to fall back into re-posting this general statement and trying to get the same argument going again all over again.  It's you technique on all threads. Argue, then when you get stripped back on your points, post a general post similar to the one you first posted, ignoring all that has went on in-between and reset the argument. Just so you can have it all over again.

[Angelo]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.

I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.

[imtommygunn]

5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.

You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.

I'm afraid you are very naive to how sleazy big pharma is and how sociopathic major corporate executives are.

He had a self interest to enrich himself and the optics of it only serve to undermine the goals of the vaccine.

"Optics" "enrich"

You use lots of fancy words most of which are nonsense.

It doesn't matter how this particular guy work or collectively how they work. Anyone would have made money from this vaccine when it was successful. Anyone.

By your line of argument only a charity would pass the criteria you're measuring them against.

You have a narrative and you'll use whatever to fit that narrative.

If it's CEO x you'll use it, CEO y you'll use it, CEO z etc. It's a nonsense and there's a reason why this story hasn't been fixated on.

You have potentially a pile of material to use here and you choose money. An angle pretty much any human being in the world would make whether they be good, bad or indifferent.

Wait what big pharma this , big pharma that, blah blah blah. Nonsense.

[trueblue1234]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.

I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.

Do you think the CEO of Pzfier, with a package of around $18M a year, took risks with a vaccine to rush it out just so that he could make $700K (Note not $5-6 million, he always had the value of the shares at the time so it's only the 15% increase we are talking about).

Yes or no answer. Forget about the optics, Big Pharma etc ect. Do you actually believe he took any actions/ shortcuts based solely on the fact of him selling these shares just for the sake of roughly half a month's income? 

[TabClear]

Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......

Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.

I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.

So you dont want a CEO of a pharma company to be allowed to sell shares while they have pharma products in development. Even though all regulatory approvals were met. So he would never be able to sell his shares given how R&D focussed they are.

Who gets to decide when he can sell his shares? You?

[RadioGAAGAA]

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?

Sure tell you what we'll do.

We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.

In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.


How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?

Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.

Oh dear, a tinfoil hat clown objects to being called out.

It's not too hard to get a rough idea how many have died as a result of covid [note - this is distinct from how many have died from covid]. Factored excess deaths above the average tend to indicate reasonably well.

If you want an accurate number down to tens, or even hundreds then you are right, no one knows - but an accuracy of hundreds is irrelevant when tens of thousands are dying as a result of covid. Indeed, statisticians would argue an accuracy of thousands is irrelevant when many tens of thousands are dying as a result of it.

[Angelo]

5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.

You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.

I'm afraid you are very naive to how sleazy big pharma is and how sociopathic major corporate executives are.

He had a self interest to enrich himself and the optics of it only serve to undermine the goals of the vaccine.

"Optics" "enrich"

You use lots of fancy words most of which are nonsense.

It doesn't matter how this particular guy work or collectively how they work. Anyone would have made money from this vaccine when it was successful. Anyone.

By your line of argument only a charity would pass the criteria you're measuring them against.

You have a narrative and you'll use whatever to fit that narrative.

If it's CEO x you'll use it, CEO y you'll use it, CEO z etc. It's a nonsense and there's a reason why this story hasn't been fixated on.

You have potentially a pile of material to use here and you choose money. An angle pretty much any human being in the world would make whether they be good, bad or indifferent.

Wait what big pharma this , big pharma that, blah blah blah. Nonsense.

It's not nonsense.

Optics are what it looks like.

It looks like the CEO had a vested interest in getting the vaccine to market. He had a reason to cut corner and take risks with its production and disclosures and the motivation was to enrich himself.

For people who are skeptical about the vaccine and harbour genuine concerns about the speed at which it was produced, this only adds fuel to the fire. It paints Big Pharma in a very bad light. Pfizer were fined a record corporate fine over a decade ago of over $2bn for giving kickbacks to doctors to endorse one of their drugs.

Then we had this a few years back.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-settlement-idUSKCN1IP2CZ

They are a company with abhorrent corporate governance practices but most of Big Pharma do. I would be very cynical of anything they say.

[imtommygunn]

Man has interest in money.

That's the headline.

What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!

Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.

You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.

Nonsense.

[TabClear]

Man has interest in money.

That's the headline.

What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!

Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.

You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.

Nonsense.

I think I am checking out on this one. Angelo's issue appears to be that a CEO at a Pharma company is seeking to bring pharma products to market for sale. Its like having an issue with BWW for launching a new car.

Shady automotive industry and all that....

[imtommygunn]

Yeah me too.

See you on the other side

[Angelo]

Man has interest in money.

That's the headline.

What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!

Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.

You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.

Nonsense.

It's the board who signed off on it.

What should have been done was that request should have been rejected and in fact any executive members of the management team should have been prohibited from divesting their shares until a defined period of time after the vaccine had been approved.

There's a way of doing things and when Pfizer conduct business as they do then they undermine the vaccine process.

[LCohen]

And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.

I think that when people ask you questions or don't believe your lies when claim to have already answered the questions you think they are bullying you.