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

stephenjmcd

199 positive swabs from 9,767 tests. 2.04% positivity

growleaves

Clearly the FT don't agree, the sub-heading is:

Pfizer chief’s explanation for selling $5.6m of shares on the day of the vaccine news does not wash

..and the article goes on to explain that a pre-programmed mechanism - which could have been around price - was set up a few months ago.

Anyway people will draw their own conclusions. If public confidence in Pfizer's vaccine is diminished you will be angry at the public and not Pfizer. Grand.

Edited for clarity

KrustyUCC

That's good news

Should keep cases under 300m today hopefully when some backlog is added in

growleaves

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

That is an unknown since the mechanism for the sale is not known. All we know is that the mechanism for the sale was arranged recently, knowing that the vaccine news would come out at some point around this time, and the shares were sold on the day of the vaccine news and consequent 7% share boost.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

"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."

“The sale of these shares is part of Dr. Bourla’s personal financial planning and a pre-established (10b5-1) plan, which allows, under SEC rules, major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time,”

Earth-shattering stuff

growleaves

Deleted User wrote: »

Earth-shattering stuff

Lol

hmmm

growleaves wrote: »

That is an unknown since the mechanism for the sale is not known. All we know is that the mechanism for the sale was arranged recently, knowing that the vaccine news would come out at some point around this time, and the shares were sold on the day of the vaccine news and consequent 7% share boost.

These are pre-planned trades where the shares are sold automatically on a particular date. This trade was planned back in August. Pre-planned share sales are normal practice for executives who are compensated in shares to avoid accusations of insider trading. In this case it's even more above board because the shares were sold after the vaccine news was made public.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Clearly the FT don't agree, the sub-heading is:



..and the article goes on to explain that a pre-programmed mechanism around price was set up a few months ago.

Anyway people will draw their own conclusions. If public confidence in Pfizer's vaccine is diminished you will be angry at the public and not Pfizer. Grand.

Yes they will indeed, one conclusion is that a CEO took advantage of provision to allow him to plan a predetermined sales mechanism to use what is his own asset, in a transparent way to trigger this at a certain share price, whcih happened to be hit after the vaccine announcement, the other appears to be that they deliberately hyped they vaccine for short term financial gain at the risk of massive fines, reputational damage and even prison

growleaves

hmmm wrote: »

These are pre-planned trades where the shares are sold automatically on a particular date. This trade was planned back in August. It's a normal practice for executives who are compensated in shares to avoid accusations of insider trading.

I know how it works.

Tom Braithwaithe in FT wrote "There is also the possibility that the plan specified a certain price rather than a date".

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Lol

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - Carl Sagan

hmmm

growleaves wrote: »

I know how it works.

You know now because we've told you. "the mechanism for the sale is not known"

eagle eye

Widdensushi wrote:

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

Is this a game of oneupmanship for you?
You haven't made one sensible comment in all your posts.

eagle eye

KrustyUCC wrote:

Should keep cases under 300m today hopefully when some backlog is added in

People seem to be fixated on the amount of cases when the percentage is what's important.

growleaves

Lads, Tom Braithwaithe of the FT says the sales mechanism may have been around price rather than a pre-specified date.

I have no power to affect the public perception of Pfizer or its vaccine, I am just pointing to the article which is in the public domain.

Sweet.Science

eagle eye wrote: »

People seem to be fixated on the amount of cases when the percentage is what's important.

I thought it was about flattening the curve

blowitupref

KrustyUCC wrote: »

That's good news

Should keep cases under 300m today hopefully when some backlog is added in

What's the potential backlog number? Nearly half of yesterdays reported case number was backlog cases.

ACitizenErased

Good figures today, we could be bordering on 1% positivity by the weekend.

eigrod

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Good figures today, we could be bordering on 1% positivity by the weekend.

2.04% must me the lowest positivity rate since early September?

Edit: except for last Tuesday

KrustyUCC

blowitupref wrote: »

What's the potential backlog number? Nearly half of yesterdays reported case number was backlog cases.

eigrod wrote: »

Could be high number tonight. I make out there were 237 more positive swabs announced than cases announced in the 7 days to Saturday 28th

I'm never sure but there was 116 backlog cases used yesterday so 121 left out there potentially

MerlinSouthDub

eagle eye wrote: »

People seem to be fixated on the amount of cases when the percentage is what's important.

You can get a lower percentage by doing loads more testing. Doesn't prove anything. The number of cases is what matters, provided your positivity rate isn't so high that it indicates you are missing cases (WHO guide that the positivity rate should be below 5%)

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Lads, Tom Braithwaithe of the FT says the sales mechanism may have been around price rather than a pre-specified date.

I have no power to affect the public perception of Pfizer or its vaccine, I am just drawing attention to the article which is in the public domain.

"May", they don't know, and even so, they are his assets, maybe he wanted to maximise his nest egg for his retirement villa in the Bahamas and thats why he elected to sell at a specific price, if thats how the trade was designed, its not illegal.

You and others however are using this insinuation with the explicit intention of giving the impression that something underhand has been done in the way the virus was developed and tested, despite being told multiple times that the process is transparent with multiple regulatory bodies getting a view on the data, and the personal and financial consequences from someone such as the Pfizer CEO interfering with that process would mean that the attendant risk associated with the short term gains would be massive for the individual.

And even so, at a company like Pfizer, a CEO or someone else in the company would not be able to circumvent the correct paths towards approval and release. If they were, very quickly you would find that the company would be in a position where they were no longer able to release new products and potentially having ship holds on the products as regulators would no longer have trust in data being supplied. Governance procedures are designed to ensure that the company keeps on the right side of the regulatory bodies, as if they are not the long term impact to the shareholders would be far in excess of any short term gain.

Add to this, Pfizers play on the vaccine is not for short term financial gain, its for long term reputational enhancement. In a few months time there will be a myriad of vaccines on the market and Pfizer will be one of many. How would it go down if it emerged Pfizer had bypassed safety checks to be first? Do you think the company, its CEO or shareholders would see a return from taking that path?

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Good figures today, we could be bordering on 1% positivity by the weekend.

Can you explain how you are predicting that?

Deeper Blue

https://twitter.com/LCreighton/status/1333542214748807171


Good on her. We need more public figures calling out RTE for their disgraceful coverage of the pandemic

KrustyUCC

RTE really are shameful with their negativity

growleaves

You and others however are using this insinuation with the explicit intention of giving the impression that something underhand has been done in the way the [vaccine] was developed and tested

False. It isn't me insinuating anything.

The article, which appears in the newspaper of the British Establishment, says public confidence in the vaccine may be diminished by this profiteering of which the timing may not be concidential.

Says it outright, not insinuates it.

I agree that it could hurt the public perception, and I think others may see it that way, but it isn't about me and I'm not opposed to vaccines anyway.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

People seem to be fixated on the amount of cases when the percentage is what's important.

Trend is good isn't it

funnydoggy

El Sueño wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LCreighton/status/1333542214748807171


Good on her. We need more public figures calling out RTE for their disgraceful coverage of the pandemic

Some of my twitter contacts I used to talk with are in there defending Sam. Glad I quit that months ago.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Trend is good isn't it

It's going well but we aren't where we need to be, where we should have been after six weeks.

Gael23

eagle eye wrote: »

It's going well but we aren't where we need to be, where we should have been after six weeks.

That’s because the pubic are quite rightly turning against NPHET

KrustyUCC

I think that target from NPHET was always going to be exceptionally hard to hit

It wasn't realistic