When will a vaccine *really* be available?

[aygart]

So she’s testing negative for COVID but achy for over a week? Ugh, sounds awful. Might have more to do with the vaccination than with the exposure.

Hope she feels all better ASAP. R”S.

Yeah they are speculating that it may be the immune reaction to the vaccine together with the exposure or something like that. A friend of my daughter's told her that her father had the same thing from the shot and he already had COVID.

[Yehuda57]

Yeah they are speculating that it may be the immune reaction to the vaccine together with the exposure or something like that. A friend of my daughter's told her that her father had the same thing from the shot and he already had COVID.

Did she perhaps get it already? Had she tested for antibodies? This might be a standard reaction for the first dose of she had it already.

Refuah shleima, how she feels better fast

[PlatinumGuy]

the ~$2bn order was a huge incentive to Pfizer

Not really, Pfizer is a huge company and a Covid vaccine is pure gold, $2B is an irrelevant drop in the sea.

[AsherO]

Not really, Pfizer is a huge company and a Covid vaccine is pure gold, $2B is an irrelevant drop in the sea.

When Trump signed with Pfizer there was no liquid gold. Look at what happened with Merck (two candidates, I believe), GSK/Sanofi, and other vaccines that flopped. Novavax got a huge contract from OWS, and we’re still waiting to reap the fruit of that one too.

[PlatinumGuy]

When Trump signed with Pfizer there was no liquid gold.

Yeah but the whole $1.9B order was only if it turned out to be gold, they didn't get any guarantee or advance.

[AsherO]

Yeah but the whole $1.9B order was only if it turned out to be gold, they didn't get any guarantee or advance.

It was an incentive to develop in overdrive. Look what the deal did to their stock price.

You have a double standard if you default to giving Biden credit for the rollout unless proven otherwise, but at the same time default to giving Trump no credit unless proven otherwise.

[PlatinumGuy]

It was an incentive to develop in overdrive. Look what the deal did to their stock price.

You have a double standard if you default to giving Biden credit for the rollout unless proven otherwise, but at the same time default to giving Trump no credit unless proven otherwise.

I am proving otherwise.

What does a $1.9B conditional contract with the US do for Pfizer more than the innate knowledge that a successful vaccine will rake in dollars?

[AsherO]

I am proving otherwise.

What does a $1.9B conditional contract with the US do for Pfizer more than the innate knowledge that a successful vaccine will rake in dollars?

You can't get away from the fact that the US delivered to market more approved vaccines faster than anywhere else (I'm keeping China out of this equation). You might argue that it's US pharmaceutical prowess, I'll stick with OWS being a significant contributing factor.

[aygart]

I am proving otherwise.

What does a $1.9B conditional contract with the US do for Pfizer more than the innate knowledge that a successful vaccine will rake in dollars?

This is not a proof, it is a question. Maybe to you it is an answer to how you can avoid giving Trump credit for anything.
Because there were others out there among other things. As @AsherO mentioned, Wall Street apparently felt it was a big deal.

[PlatinumGuy]

I'll stick with OWS being a significant contributing factor.

Please explain how that contributed to Pfizer?

[aygart]

Did she perhaps get it already? Had she tested for antibodies? This might be a standard reaction for the first dose of she had it already.

Refuah shleima, how she feels better fast

She tested negative for antibodies twice and has no reason to believe she got it since then, but yes that is part of the speculation.

[AsherO]

Please explain how that contributed to Pfizer?

It cost huge money to develop a vaccine, especially on a platform that hasn't been brought to market yet. Having ~$2b in upfront orders is a significant carrot. Pfizer had reasons not to take $$ upfront from the US government like other OWS recipients did, maybe so as not to be beholden to the US government. But they did sign the contract and I'm confident it had a significant affect on their strategy.

[PlatinumGuy]

Because there were others out there

Ah, so Pfizer was afraid their vaccine wouldn't be ready before Covid disappeared but Trump reassured them?

As @AsherO mentioned, Wall Street apparently felt it was a big deal.

Let's look at all the things 'Wall Street' thought was a big deal for Tesla and GameStop.

Federal government taking Pfizer seriously is a good soundbite, not something that has a material affect on bringing a vaccine to market.

It cost huge money to develop a vaccine, especially on a platform that hasn't been brought to market yet. Having ~$2b in upfront orders is a significant carrot.

I'm disputing that $2b in upfront orders is carrot. If you mine gold, having upfront orders for that gold is irrelevant. You either find it, or you don't.

Please explain how having upfront orders for something they can obviously sell helps Pfizer?

That's before you dig into the timeline and question how much of the vaccine and trial were already underway and budgeted by the time the $1.9B contract was signed.

[aygart]

Ah, so Pfizer was afraid their vaccine wouldn't be ready before Covid disappeared but Trump reassured them?
 

No they wanted a guaranteed market share. THis is so basic for anyone running a business.

Let's look at all the things 'Wall Street' thought was a big deal for Tesla and GameStop.

Federal government taking Pfizer seriously is a good soundbite, not something that has a material affect on bringing a vaccine to market.
 

What does a corporate CEO care about more than stock price?
Your comparison to Tesla and Gamestop ends at the rising stock price from what I can see. Do you have any substantial comparison between them?

[AsherO]

Ah, so Pfizer was afraid their vaccine wouldn't be ready before Covid disappeared but Trump reassured them?
 
Let's look at all the things 'Wall Street' thought was a big deal for Tesla and GameStop.

Federal government taking Pfizer seriously is a good soundbite, not something that has a material affect on bringing a vaccine to market.
 
I'm disputing that $2b in upfront orders is carrot. If you mine gold, having upfront orders for that gold is irrelevant. You either find it, or you don't.

Please explain how having upfront orders for something they can obviously sell helps Pfizer?

That's before you dig into the timeline and question how much of the vaccine and trial were already underway and budgeted by the time the $1.9B contract was signed.

Your logic is predicated on the fact that Pfizer knew it would be liquid gold upon approval, that isn't necessarily the case. There was no data yet on how efficacy of mRNA would compare to other vaccine types. There's also vaccine cost and distribution hurdles: Pfizer's actual manufacturing costs (not including R&D) are more than retail (which is cost because J&J isn't profiting) for J&J's vaccine.

It does so happen to be that Pfizer does have a huge market for the vaccine despite these aforementioned downsides, but they happened to get lucky with superior efficacy, that wasn't a given. If (and I agree this is highly hypothetical) Moderna, Merck, GSK, or some other pharmaceutical giant had a 95% efficacy vaccine with manufacturing capacity to outsupply Pfizer (e.g. if J&J's vaccine had better efficacy numbers, or shows to with two doses), then Pfizer's market will quickly shrink significantly.

[PlatinumGuy]

No they wanted a guaranteed market share.

Anybody producing a successful vaccine has a guaranteed market share. You're clinging to straws to give Trump credit.

What does a corporate CEO care about more than stock price?

How does that fit into a narrative of Trump bringing a vaccine to market earlier? If the $1.9b spiked Pfizer's stock price, any development up that point was done without that $1.9b incentiv  and any development after that $1.9B didn't have any incentive from the $1.9B.

Where's the logic?

Your logic is predicated on the fact that Pfizer knew it would be liquid gold upon approval, that isn't necessarily the case. There was no data yet on how efficacy of mRNA would compare to other vaccine types. There's also vaccine cost and distribution hurdles: Pfizer's actual manufacturing costs (not including R&D) are more than retail (which is cost because J&J isn't profiting) for J&J's vaccine.

It does so happen to be that Pfizer does have a huge market for the vaccine despite these aforementioned downsides, but they happened to get lucky with superior efficacy, that wasn't a given. If (and I agree this is highly hypothetical) Moderna, Merck, GSK, or some other pharmaceutical giant had a 95% efficacy vaccine with manufacturing capacity to outsupply Pfizer (e.g. if J&J's vaccine had better efficacy numbers, or shows to with two doses), then Pfizer's market will quickly shrink significantly.

I hear that. So basically the US gave Pfizer a backstop that if their vaccine is good but not good enough, they would still sell $1.9b worth of it. I have a question though - is there any approved vaccine that is so bad it doesn't sell $2b worth of? Isn't even Astra Zeneca selling well?

Also, the backstop isn't such a big deal to Pfizer. It couldn't of have a major impact IMHO.

[avromie7]

Anybody producing a successful vaccine has a guaranteed market share. You're clinging to straws to give Trump credit.

How does that fit into a narrative of Trump bringing a vaccine to market earlier? If the $1.9b spiked Pfizer's stock price, any development up that point was done without that $1.9b incentiv  and any development after that $1.9B didn't have any incentive from the $1.9B.

Where's the logic?

I hear that. So basically the US gave Pfizer a backstop that if their vaccine is good but not good enough, they would still sell $1.9b worth of it. I have a question though - is there any approved vaccine that is so bad it doesn't sell $2b worth of? Isn't even Astra Zeneca selling well?

Also, the backstop isn't such a big deal to Pfizer. It couldn't of have a major impact IMHO.

A big part of why AZN is selling well is because it's cheap, if Pfizer would be as bad as AZN there's no way they can sell at $20 per dose.

[AsherO]

Anybody producing a successful vaccine has a guaranteed market share. You're clinging to straws to give Trump credit.

How does that fit into a narrative of Trump bringing a vaccine to market earlier? If the $1.9b spiked Pfizer's stock price, any development up that point was done without that $1.9b incentiv  and any development after that $1.9B didn't have any incentive from the $1.9B.

Where's the logic?

I hear that. So basically the US gave Pfizer a backstop that if their vaccine is good but not good enough, they would still sell $1.9b worth of it. I have a question though - is there any approved vaccine that is so bad it doesn't sell $2b worth of? Isn't even Astra Zeneca selling well?

Also, the backstop isn't such a big deal to Pfizer. It couldn't of have a major impact IMHO.

So OWS (along with whatever happened at the FDA to speed along, as safely as possible, EUAs for COVID vaccines) are not to Trumps credit because OWS didn’t front money to Pfizer. Moderna, AZN (while not yet EUA-approved in the US) and J&J were still a smashing success, and all the other OWS bets put pressure on Pfizer and other big pharma to prioritize their vaccine development to compete in the market.

[PlatinumGuy]

A big part of why AZN is selling well is because it's cheap, if Pfizer would be as bad as AZN there's no way they can sell at $20 per dose.

I hear that, but I'm not sure if price is AZN is being bought because it's cheap (the price of vaccines is negligible for all Western countries), and I'm skeptical if the AZN price is low because of the efficacy and not because of lower production cost, so I think mRNA with a higher production cost would command the $20 price even if it was less effective, just by virtue of being available.

I can't find the exact details but it does seem like the US bought 300m doses of AZN at $4 already in May, way before any distinction in efficacy was known and 2 months before they bought Pfizer at $20.


https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/05/21/trump-administration-accelerates-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-to-be-available-beginning-in-october.html

(along with whatever happened at the FDA to speed along, as safely as possible, EUAs for COVID vaccines)

The UK approved the Pfizer vaccine before the US did. If anything , Trump bullied the FDA and slowed them down, it's hard to give him credit for speeding something up that was slower than the UK.

Moderna, AZN (while not yet EUA-approved in the US) and J&J were still a smashing success, and all the other OWS bets put pressure on Pfizer and other big pharma to prioritize their vaccine development to compete in the market.

I have no problem conceding the Trump admin deserves credit for those vaccines, I just think any other President would've done it much faster, to the extent the government had any influence on the timeline.

[AsherO]

I have no problem conceding the Trump admin deserves credit for those vaccines, I just think any other President would've done it much faster, to the extent the government had any influence on the timeline.

The first is a fact and I appreciate your concession, the second is hypothetical that can’t be tested.

The Biden administration has done a superb job at vaccine distribution so far (in some aspects more than others). The big test will be keeping the momentum going when US supply outpaces demand.