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

[Angelo]

It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.

I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.

5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.

Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?

There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.

Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?

Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.

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?

The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.

[trueblue1234]

It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.

I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.

5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.

Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?

There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.

Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?

Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.

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.

[trueblue1234]

It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.

I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.

5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.

Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?

There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.

Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?

Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.

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?

The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.

I think you know this is a lost cause Angelo.......

[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.

[Seaney]

Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?

No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.

Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.

This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.

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

So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!

Or if they find out that it lasts a lifetime then all will be right with the world. I'm sure they are tracking the levels of protection from the trials so we will hear if the protection starts to diminish. But we'd be no worth off than not having got the vaccine in the first place.

Crazy statement, really is head in the sand, so if everyone is allowed to hug their granny and turns out granny isn't protected, granny will be worse off, but it galls you to say maybe this has been rushed, EU don't seem to be rushing it!

[Seaney]

This thread reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists. No matter what theory is debunked, they cannot help themselves.

Except no one is debunking Covid, or the vaccination process, just have concerns about the expedient rollout of such a vaccine with so many unknowns. Some moonmen on this thread though I concur with that!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Angelo]

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?

Millions are dying anyway.

Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?

Because a virus is significantly easier to isolate and produce solutions to.

[trueblue1234]

Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?

No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.

Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.

This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.

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

So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!

Or if they find out that it lasts a lifetime then all will be right with the world. I'm sure they are tracking the levels of protection from the trials so we will hear if the protection starts to diminish. But we'd be no worth off than not having got the vaccine in the first place.

Crazy statement, really is head in the sand, so if everyone is allowed to hug their granny and turns out granny isn't protected, granny will be worse off, but it galls you to say maybe this has been rushed, EU don't seem to be rushing it!

No it's not. As I said they will be monitoring if the impact of the vaccine diminishes. The people from the clinical trials will show if it does diminish before everyone else. If it does then a booster may be needed. This has already been mentioned. It's not a hit and hope no matter how much you would like it to be. The only alternative would be to wait years to see if it had side effects/ lasting immunity, by which time who knows how many would have dies or businesses destroyed. 

[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......

[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.

[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.