Do you ever own up to things you post?
Here is your full post. No mention of a purchase order.
Vaccine News
- Thread starter Pirata
- Start date
Do you ever own up to things you post?
Here is your full post. No mention of a purchase order.
Your backpedaling ultimate led to a reasonable statement. It didn't have to be this painful.
Amazing that he can now say 0WS is good and did what they should have done, but really has no clue as to what they actually did.
You're still going?
I'm well aware of what I said. Instead of acting like... well, you... why not just ask me to clarify what I was talking about to help you understand?
The "promise of less than 5% of their annual revenue " is the purchase order I was referring to.
This entire thread is just a continuous doubling down of someone trying to give credit to OWS because we promised to buy the vaccine after Pfizer's testing was showing promising results...
Pfizer has purchase commitments for 480 million does, and the US has purchased 100 million of them.
If you guys want to keep bending over backwards to say that OWS deserves more credit than it deserves for Pfizer's progress specifically, have at it... Or maybe wait a week or two when the other promising vaccine candidates which actually did receive funding from OWS start announcing phase 3 results and expectations of approval timelines. Moderna needed the government to be where they are today. Pfizer did not.
Some accountant. Still don’t understand the difference between revenue and contribution margin.
I’ve been consistent from the beginning. 0WS deserves credit for getting therapies and vaccines to market earlier than they normally would have. I never said they should get all of the credit, But it was a well conceived strategy and task force that has provided measurable value. I have seen it with my own eyes.
I’ve been consistent from the beginning. 0WS deserves credit for getting therapies and vaccines to market earlier than they normally would have. I never said they should get all of the credit, But it was a well conceived strategy and task force that has provided measurable value. I have seen it with my own eyes.
No. I understand what it is. I just think you are giving it too much credit with Pfizer specifically and you aren't really including the bigger picture of market driven forces which would be pushing Pfizer to create a vaccine quickly without commitments to purchase. Again, many countries purchased their vaccine. Assume the US did not for a moment and Pfizer only has commitments for 380 million doses. Would they be further behind where they are today? Of course not.
See. There is no need for that. Honestly, going for personal attacks shows a lack of character and doesn't move a discussion / debate forward at all.
Of course I understand the difference, but neither of us know enough to have a meaningful discussion about it at this point. You're making assumptions which is fine, but it is really not based on anything. I saw an estimate that this vaccine will cost Pfizer north of $7.50 per dose.
How much could Pfizer make from a COVID-19 vaccine?
A COVID vaccine from the pharmaceutical company has been shown to be highly promising.
I'm not really interested in a debate about contribution margin when we don't know the details, especially when your original assumption was a cost of $0.50 per dose.
and that is true. As I have said several times in this thread... we will be in a better place because of the program... but in regards to Pfizer specifically, that credit is just largely assumption that their motivation to move as quickly as they have was because OWS created more competition. Pfizer saying specifically that they did not want to participate in the program because it would slow them down seems like Pfizer was full speed ahead to try and be first to market very early on and I am not sure the idea that they would be slower without as much competition (there would still have been plenty) is really supportable outside of assumptions.
Give me a break. Flippin pot calling the kettle black.
When people do not agree with you, You attack character. You call people silly. You LOL every third post. You use the emoticons and other keyboard art.
You are the one that's keep going. I gave plenty of stopping point posts.
There you go again... another personal attack.
Your contradictions and back pedaling are pretty clear. No need to get clarification. Instead of acting like.....well....you why don't you try to stop pitbulling every last damn point down to the gnat's ass.
Your points are not that sound and when someone disagrees, you go batsh_t.
Your post is dismissive of $1.95B in guaranteed purchases. I don't agree to dismiss it or LOL it.
I don't agree with your timeline. I believe Pfizer had the guarantee in the works from the get go, long before it was announced.
No-one is bending over backwards saying the OWS was the sole reason Pfzier developed the vaccine. No one is defending Trump. It is you who are saying that people are doing that. People have said it has help, which it has. How much...wo knows?
Feel free to not respond.
You see the difference between laughing at something someone says vs saying they are bad at their job though, right? There is a difference in attacking a person vs the debate itself.
Me believing something you or 85 said is silly has nothing to do with your character.
People who I look up to say things which are silly I don't agree with as well.
I responded in kind. Will avoid stooping next time.
It's not dismissive. I just do not believe it is as relevant to Pfizer being where they are today vs others here. I think they moved aggressively towards getting a vaccine to market (paying 750 million to BioNtech) because they are one of the top pharma companies in the world, and getting to market early will not only make them a lot of money but improve their brand reputation.
That combined with the fact that Pfizer had the opportunity to receive contingent free funds and said no because it would slow them down. I just believe that the original post here aiming to give OWS credit was not really that accurate.
When 85 said "investments were made to start up manufacturing in parallel to the clinical trials. In essence warp speed providing an insurance policy to these companies." - Pfizer is not a part of that at all. They are paying for manufacturing. If their drug is not approved, they lose the cost.
and then - "So yes, Trump and his administration get credit for this."
That seems like a reach. Like I said, wait a week and there will be plenty to take credit for that as much more to do with OWS than Pfizer's results to date.
You did what I said you would. My post specifically said the costs were illustrative, I said exactly that about the 50 cent cost because neither you nor I know. What I do know (and you don’t) is the premium OWS/BARDA is paying. I used 10x as a conservative estimate as we received a higher multiple.See. There is no need for that. Honestly, going for personal attacks shows a lack of character and doesn't move a discussion / debate forward at all.
Of course I understand the difference, but neither of us know enough to have a meaningful discussion about it at this point. You're making assumptions which is fine, but it is really not based on anything. I saw an estimate that this vaccine will cost Pfizer north of $7.50 per dose.
How much could Pfizer make from a COVID-19 vaccine?
A COVID vaccine from the pharmaceutical company has been shown to be highly promising.www.marketplace.org
I'm not really interested in a debate about contribution margin when we don't know the details, especially when your original assumption was a cost of $0.50 per dose.
and that is true. As I have said several times in this thread... we will be in a better place because of the program... but in regards to Pfizer specifically, that credit is just largely assumption that their motivation to move as quickly as they have was because OWS created more competition. Pfizer saying specifically that they did not want to participate in the program because it would slow them down seems like Pfizer was full speed ahead to try and be first to market very early on and I am not sure the idea that they would be slower without as much competition (there would still have been plenty) is really supportable outside of assumptions.
Define what you mean as I gave them “too much credit”. The incentives and fast tracking helped Pfizer; no question. What is “too much?”
Last edited:
Somewhat off topic but anybody here remember people praising Europe? Not looking good there
That he’s not in the banking industry.
trump did not give the big dog Pfizer ALL of the same favorable treatment as other companies; Trump knew that what he did offer combined with removing other obstacles would create competition to get us where we are. Pfizer got back at Trump by delaying its announcement and I don’t blame them for doing that under the circumstances. But your guys‘ inability to give credit to Trump on anything completely discredits everything you say.
Right, illustrative and why I am not debating the margins because we don't know. 10x does not appear to be conservative though based on the US purchase price of $19.50 per dose and an estimated reported cost to produce of $7.5. If I had to guess, I would expect that $19.50 is a discount on the market price, not a premium.
"investments were made to start up manufacturing in parallel to the clinical trials. In essence warp speed providing an insurance policy to these companies. "
^ that part. As the risk to Pfizer is not shared or absorbed by the government like the other companies.
I audit banks. Just curious what your issue was with how knowknow characterized his post?
I gave the administration credit for the program. As I said, I think they did it right.
Just happened that Pfizer didn't need their help. Others did and we will be in a better place because of OWS. Not sure why you think that isn't giving credit.
And once again I told you what the margins are based on direct experience. Keep ignoring that. Pfizer didn’t need the governments help to develop the vaccine but 0WS is Helping them to get the vaccine approved and manufactured faster. Somehow you can’t seem to grasp that fact.
Because it’s not as simple as a 2B loan. It’s completely oversimplified so to suggest that Trump did nothing. Who cares that you audit banks (other than those who knock your abilities apparently lol)
Not ignoring your experience. I am saying that your experience with a 10x premiums does not appear to be the case with Pfizer based on the purchase price of $19.50 and a development cost of at least $7.50.
We will see where it lands. No reason to debate that at this point is all I am saying.
and that is why I asked what the mechanisms were that OWS specifically was doing outside of the means available from an FDA fast track program and the emergency use authorizations?
How are they approving this faster than they would have otherwise under normal FDA fast tracking?
It is even easier than a $2 billion loan. At 12/31/2019 Pfizer had about $50 billion of debt and $15 billon in unused lines. In 2019 they had a public offering to raise 5 billion at an effective rate of 3.5%
They could get $2billion cash tomorrow if they wanted to.
You’re unbelievable. Go back and read my posts. I’m not gonna keep saying the same thing over and over again.
That was knowknows's point. They have access to the money they would need for distribution. The purchase commitment doesn't really make them move faster on production.
A lot of this gets lost between discussions among different people and misunderstanding the context.
The point here is that Pfizer is being paid for their product that they are making. They are not being paid to help with distribution... but an actual product purchase.
If they didn't get a contract for that payment from OWS, they would still be making the product.
They still have promises to buy hundreds of millions of doses outside of OWS.
I'm an out of work hairdresser but my expertise is in the area of money. Hall85 made a very clear statement
Pfizer doesn't need OWS to fund $2 billion for distribution.
This thread is almost embarrassing as Trump’s press conference today.
I go back to the argument that if Trump acted more like a president than an ass, more of the good things he’s done would be recognized. Sounded like an idiot in that press conference.
I go back to the argument that if Trump acted more like a president than an ass, more of the good things he’s done would be recognized. Sounded like an idiot in that press conference.
I turned it on and was hopeful for the first few seconds that maybe he has realized that divisiveness gains him nothing at this point but that hope quickly faded away as he talked... but you’re right, I would judge him differently if we could ignore who he is and everything he says.
Even today still tweeting that he won the election, he is just trying to tear the country further apart. If he had been capable of putting the country ahead of his narcissism, he had could have been a much better president.
A
anon_fsijwwodmilhm
Guest
Politics aside, from a neutral standpoint why is it so hard to give this administration credit for Operation Warp Speed. I may be in the minority but I think this administration has done the best job they could do with the available information minus Fauci and Birks in my opinion were disasters. Dr. Birks does have a wicked scarf game. I challenge anybody to name me a Covid-19 expert, you can’t. I am curious to hear Biden’s plan, because I haven’t heard anything but a national mask mandate, follow the science and a dark winter and another possible lockdown. Also, he doesn’t have a great record in handling an epidemic, so the bland. It would be more refreshing to hear a detailed plan since he’s been critical of the administration. This virus has become way to political for my liking but Warp Speed impressiv.
I’ll take a neutral stab... far too little was done early and the severity of the situation was ignored too long that anything done later, like the good from OWS, is overlooked. This whole thread of Pfizer v. OWS aside, no one can argue that OWS wasn’t useful and the US gov’t isn’t doing its all to fast-track vaccines and therapeutics. But most will also say the early response to the issue, lack of central unified response from the central government, the pissing match with the WHO and lack of global coordination are all signs of a weak federal effort.
When the leader of your country acts like a man-child and still insists on calling it the “China virus” and bickering like my 5-year-old twins with the governor of a state in a press conference, he is taken at face value: a buffoon.
This pandemic should never have been politicized. It should have been glaringly apparent from the eyes of the greatest nation in the world and we should have been a pioneer for the global community. Instead we became the laughingstock of the world and recent efforts are seen as “well it’s about ****ing time”. Europe put a travel ban on US citizens entering the EU. Think about that.
Wow now getting quotes from my cousin vinny on this thread
The EU travel ban has been going on for months. But we too are not allowing in citizens across most of Europe as well.
Most here wont care but many across waters and borders have a far different stance on USA and not sure that bias will go away anytime in near future.
Sami, this is a pretty good take. This virus has been completely politicized by both sides. While I agree with what Trump has done with OWS and some of the task forces, his messaging has been absolutely horrible and childish. And equally stupid stuff has come out of the mouths of people like Pelosi and Murphy.
I do think, however, the China must be held accountable for their lack of transparency in communicating early on. This virus has been responsible for probably 2 million deaths and the undermining of the worlds economy. Whether it came from a lab or a wet market, China failed in preparing the world for the contagiousness.
seeing what has happened in this country and globally, it comes down to the same two things that would have improved our outcomes. First of all, we should have Closed our borders and limited Movement between states. I find it interesting that states like Vermont and Maine have some of the lowest deaths per hundred thousand even though they are in the north east. Both states have very severe restrictions on quarantining for coming in or for leaving. Yes, they are more rural states but their numbers are the best in the country.
The other thing we should’ve done was to protect those most at risk instead of shutting down everything. We failed miserably at that.
Finally, knowing that a vaccine will take at least a year to be available to everyone, there should’ve been an emphasis on having immediate focus on healthy living. If we spent half the energy that we have making it all about the mask, we would’ve been able to avoid many more hospitalizations and deaths just by doing that.Yeah you hear crickets on the topic. In fact, I would wager a year later we are even an unhealthy or population just based on the kinds of food people are buying in this pandemic and getting less exercise. I was speaking with someone buys for an online retailer That tracks by customer. Over the past nine months most of their customers have gone up a size when ordering.
Last edited:
Similar threads
