Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

growleaves

weldoninhio wrote: »

Thalidomine was in the 40/50 years ago, Pandemrix only ten years ago.

Human error cannot be elided by technological progress.

Personally I do not believe the 21st century has seen strides in terms of honesty and integrity.

We have seen a decline in the transcendent belief in truth as well as a greater emphasis on careerism, and a huge increase in dishonest technocratic babbling across all areas of life.

Pfzier's CEO was engaged in stock dumping last month on the day of the vaccine news. He was criticised by the Financial Times for this.

growleaves

When Pfizer and German partner BioNTech announced on Monday that their Covid-19 vaccine was highly effective, global stocks soared. Shares in Pfizer rose 7 per cent and chief executive Albert Bourla sold $5.6m of stock at a whisker from the company’s all-time high.

https://amp.ft.com/content/6d494c88-f971-481d-90d2-4e678155209e

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

https://amp.ft.com/content/6d494c88-f971-481d-90d2-4e678155209e

Why would he sell if he expected the vaccine to add significantly to the bottom line?

mcburns07

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would he sell if he expected the vaccine to add significantly to the bottom line?

Presume expectations of a successful and profitable vaccine are already factored into the share price?

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Human error cannot be elided by technological progress.

Personally I do not believe the 21st century has seen strides in terms of honesty and integrity.

We have seen a decline in the transcendent belief in truth as well as a greater emphasis on careerism, and a huge increase in dishonest technocratic babbling across all areas of life.

Pfzier's CEO was engaged in stock dumping last month on the day of the vaccine news. He was criticised by the Financial Times for this.

The system of regulatory oversight is what prevents such issues in the 21st century. This did not exist in the time of Thalidomide and other. Added to this the CEO and Quality head are criminally responsible for breaches of established safety protocols

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Why would he sell if he expected the vaccine to add significantly to the bottom line?

Stock price rose, he sold. Why are you asking somebody to give you an answer to a question they couldn't possibly know?

mcburns07

mcburns07 wrote: »

Presume expectations of a successful and profitable vaccine are already factored into the share price?

Or maybe the fact that multiple successful vaccines on the market means very quickly it will be a commodity and all about who is the cheapest, which is where Pfizers offering loses out

growleaves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would he sell if he expected the vaccine to add significantly to the bottom line?

I don't know what he expected, or if he thinks that will be the stock price peak.

I know that he did sell shares and get rich off the news about the vaccine. As did Stéphane Bancel (Moderna).

JDD

He was smart. He sold a chunk of his shares on a day that Pfizer came out with the first viable vaccine. Of course the stock price was going to soar. The stock price would be highest on the day of the news, as it would be buoyed by hope and by being the first vaccine (still no news at the time on the other frontrunners) and before there is any inevitable problems with distributing that vaccine or before any investors knew that other - perhaps more easily travelled - vaccines would be viable.

He was smart to sell on that day. And that's the point of senior executives using their bonuses to buy stock - so that if the company does well, they get to share in the profit. I don't see anything particularly wrong with it, unless the CEO was making incorrect statements on the viability of the vaccine, or misleading the market in any way. AFAIK that has not happened.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

I don't know what he expected, or if he thinks that will be the stock price peak.

I know that he did sell shares and get rich off the news about the vaccine. As did Stéphane Bancel (Moderna).

Did they do anything illegal and if they didnt are they submitting all their data to regulatory bodies all over the world for scrutiny. The problem some seem to have is companies and who have invested large amounts of money in develop vaccines and their officers are making money off the vaccines? This is somehow being suggested as evidence that the vaccines have been developed in a unsafe manner.

Anyone who knows how the approval process works in the medical products world knows that as much as these companies want to make money, bypassing or attempting to bypass normal safety measures and regulatory requirements will result in those involved in prison in the US and the company facing billions of dollars in fines

spookwoman

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd 100% agree with that sentence regarding established vaccines. I had my flu vaccine last week.

I'm just pointing out that I, and i'm sure many others, would be reticent about getting a rushed vaccine, that the inventors are fully indemnified against and adverse reaction. That doesn't make someone anti-vax or a 5g conspirator.

Can understand that especially after the swineflu one causing narcolepsy and yes when you hear the different companies making their announcements what might seem as trying to outdo the other one it doesn't help.
Honestly I'd like to see the oxford crowd do well, they just seem to be a bit more open about things.

growleaves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The system of regulatory oversight is what prevents such issues in the 21st century. This did not exist in the time of Thalidomide and other. Added to this the CEO and Quality head are criminally responsible for breaches of established safety protocols

I'm aware of how it's supposed to work but I don't believe that a system of bureaucratic mechanisms to prevent corruption will necessarily be effective.

The system is supposed to be human-proof, like when John Adams said " a government of laws, not of men".

Not possible in my opinion, a philosophical error, since abstract laws and systems have no independent existence outwith the human beings who operate them and exist within them.

Who oversees the oversight committee?

Funsterdelux

growleaves wrote: »

I'm aware of how it's supposed to work but I don't believe that a system of bureaucratic mechanisms to prevent corruption will necessarily be effective.

The system is supposed to be human-proof, like when John Adams said " a government of laws, not of men".

Not possible in my opinion, a philosophical error, since abstract laws and systems have no independent existence outwith the human beings who operate them and exist within them.

Who oversees the oversight committee?

Widdensushi

eagle eye wrote: »

So something that would make sense to avoid crowds is 'more regulatory nonsense'.
Honestly you get lost in your own stubbornness quite a bit.

As for me, there's no chance. Last Christmas present I had to buy was ordered over the phone from D.I.D. on Friday and I collected it yesterday. I've bought online from Irish vendors and I was in contact with my local stores and arranged pick up of items too.

Do you live less than 5 k from D. I. D.? Boasting you did non essential shopping during a pandemic lockdown!!!
The staff had to put themselves at risk sorting your non essential shopping.

growleaves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did they do anything illegal

Nope, just exploited a loophole in SEC regulation for which the Financial Times criticised them.

I'm not inferring anything definite from it. But you had claimed a page back that Pfizer had seen no share boost. They had both seen a share boost and the CEO had personally profited from this share boost.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

The system of regulatory oversight is what prevents such issues in the 21st century. This did not exist in the time of Thalidomide and other. Added to this the CEO and Quality head are criminally responsible for breaches of established safety protocols

Was there no regulatory oversight in 2009?

weldoninhio

Widdensushi wrote: »

Do you live less than 5 k from D. I. D.? Boasting you did non essential shopping during a pandemic lockdown!!!
The staff had to put themselves at risk sorting your non essential shopping.

100%. The irony is that DID stands for Delivery In Dublin, as when they opened that was their USP. They deliver nationwide now.

eagle eye

Widdensushi wrote:

Do you live less than 5 k from D. I. D.? Boasting you did non essential shopping during a pandemic lockdown!!! The staff had to put themselves at risk sorting your non essential shopping.

The owners in the local stores did the order on their own as far as I'm aware. They were doing this for many people and thankful for the business.
I'm sensible as regards this virus, I don't listen to stupidity as in what the government say on many things. I won't be attending restaurants, the height of stupidity, or packed shops.
My kids never went back to school either, we are homeschooling until we deem it safe to send them back.
I walk my dogs in an isolated area about 8km from my home, a lot safer than walking around an urban area.

The staff in D.I.D. are working full time, they were never closed as far as I'm aware.

What Username Guidelines

weldoninhio wrote: »

100%. The irony is that DID stands for Delivery In Dublin, as when they opened that was their USP. They deliver nationwide now.

It stands for Deliver, Install, Demonstrate.

Or colloquially, Dearest in Dublin.

Widdensushi

eagle eye wrote: »

The owners in the local stores did the order on their own as far as I'm aware. They were doing this for many people and thankful for the business.
I'm sensible as regards this virus, I don't listen to stupidity as in what the government say on many things. I won't be attending restaurants, the height of stupidity, or packed shops.
My kids never went back to school either, we are homeschooling until we deem it safe to send them back.
I walk my dogs in an isolated area about 8km from my home, a lot safer than walking around an urban area.

The staff in D.I.D. are working full time, they were never closed as far as I'm aware.

You are like the gang at the party at the golf course, you believe the rules are for others, you are above them.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Nope, just exploited a loophole in SEC regulation for which the Financial Times criticised them.

I'm not inferring anything definite from it. But you had claimed a page back that Pfizer had seen no share boost. They had both seen a share boost and the CEO had personally profited from this share boost.

Pfizer share price was just as high at the start of the year and far higher 2 years ago

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

I'm aware of how it's supposed to work but I don't believe that a system of bureaucratic mechanisms to prevent corruption will necessarily be effective.

The system is supposed to be human-proof, like when John Adams said " a government of laws, not of men".

Not possible in my opinion, a philosophical error, since abstract laws and systems have no independent existence outwith the human beings who operate them and exist within them.

Who oversees the oversight committee?

Ah, i get it, you have no experience or knowledge in this area

eagle eye

Widdensushi wrote: »

You are like the gang at the party at the golf course, you believe the rules are for others, you are above them.

I believe that some of the rules are insanely stupid as in the 5km rule. You explain to me how it's safer to walk dogs in an urban area than a rural isolated area?

My dogs are happier, people that don't like dogs are happier, zero chance of contacting the virus in an isolated aread.

growleaves

"To sell most of your holdings, absent a divorce or other unavoidable event, looks bad. That is especially true when public confidence in your company is a matter of life or death."

growleaves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, i get it, you have no experience or knowledge in this area

Lol.

You are wrong.

Widdensushi

eagle eye wrote: »

I believe that some of the rules are insanely stupid as in the 5km rule. You explain to me how it's safer to walk dogs in an urban area than a rural isolated area?

My dogs are happier, people that don't like dogs are happier, zero chance of contacting the virus in an isolated aread.

The hypocrisy to constantly look for extra restrictions on everyone else when you personally don't obey the existing ones.....

frank8211

Widdensushi wrote: »

You are like the gang at the party at the golf course, you believe the rules are for others, you are above them.

The rules have to be interpreted as indicative. They are blunt because people dont get the point of avoiding people. And not consistent of course. You shoulnt go to a DID more than 5 km from home to buy click and collect is mad. No one gets the virus doing that. But you can go any distance to school, where the virus is spreading like wildfire

DOCARCH

Jeez. Another 15 deaths announced today in NI!

hmmm

growleaves wrote: »

Nope, just exploited a loophole in SEC regulation for which the Financial Times criticised them.

I'm not inferring anything definite from it. But you had claimed a page back that Pfizer had seen no share boost. They had both seen a share boost and the CEO had personally profited from this share boost.

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about, and "exploiting a loophole" is completely false.

This was a planned share sale programmed in for that date months previously (August 19). Pfizer did not control the details of the vaccine news timing, that is the independent safety board - and there was no way to predict to within a few days when the results would be available. Pfizer could have chosen not to make any details public, but they flagged well in advance that they would be transparent on results.

The results could have been disastrous, and the share sale would still have gone through.

The FT article is criticising company executives (in any company) selling shares, to which the first commentator makes the valid point that no-one should be expected to tie up all their wealth in a single company and much of the compensation of senior executives is in shares.

Widdensushi

frank8211 wrote: »

The rules have to be interpreted as indicative. They are blunt because people dont get the point of avoiding people. And not consistent of course. You shoulnt go to a DID more than 5 km from home to buy click and collect is mad. No one gets the virus doing that. But you can go any distance to school, where the virus is spreading like wildfire

I agree with you, I am not a poster is constantly looking for more restrictions and complaining about people who they believe are in breach, eagle is and it's the height of hypocrisy to then say you don't obey the existing rules when it suits you, if there was a park within 5k he would be on giving out about others going 8k to a park.