Datos interesantes viendo el contrato desde el punto de vista de SK BIOSCIENCES
SK Biosciences (Presidente: Ahn Jae-yong) dijo el 24 de marzo que ha firmado un contrato con Contact Manufacturing Organization (CMO) y acuerdos de licencia para la producción y el suministro global de la vacuna COVID-19 NVX-CoV2373, desarrollada por la bioempresa estadounidense NovaBacks.
Para diciembre del próximo año, SK Biosciences utilizará tres de las nueve instalaciones de producción de gas crudo en andong Vaccine Factory L House para producir NVX-CoV2373.
EL CONTRATO FUE FIRMADO POR SK BIOSCIENCES AL RECIBIR UNA TARIFA DE ENVÍO DE NOVA BAGS POR LA PRODUCCIÓN DE LA CANTIDAD ORIGINAL (DS) Y UNA TARIFA DE INGRESOS POR LA VENTA DE NOVA BAGS'COMPLETED (DP) Y LA VENTA DIRECTA A COREA, TAILANDIA Y VIETNAM PARA ASEGURAR INGRESOS ADICIONALES.
EL CONTRATO ORIGINAL SE DISCUTIÓ EN FORMA DE SK BIOSCIENCES QUE RECIBÍA TARIFAS DE PRODUCCIÓN POR ENCARGO DE ACUERDO CON LA PRODUCCIÓN SUMINISTRADA A NOVA BAGS. ADEMÁS, EL CONTRATO COMPLETADO GARANTIZABA QUE SK BIOSCIENCES RECIBIERA UNA COMISIÓN BASADA EN LAS VENTAS SI NOVABAGS FABRICABA Y VENDÍA LA CANTIDAD PRODUCIDA EN UNA DE LAS INSTALACIONES DE PRODUCCIÓN DE MATERIAS PRIMAS DE ANDONG.
SK Biosciences también se ha asegurado el derecho de suministrar y comercializar NVX-CoV2373 producido en Andong a Corea del Sur, Tailandia y Vietnam, lo que le permite buscar acuerdos de compra para cada país.
SK BIOSCIENCES ESPERA INGRESOS ADICIONALES PARA CADA CONTRATO, INCLUIDOS APROXIMADAMENTE KRW 200 MIL MILLONES EN HONORARIOS ESTIMADOS INCURRIDOS EN VIRTUD DEL CONTRATO ORIGINAL.
SK Biosciences ha estado produciendo NVX-CoV2373 con NovaBacks en agosto del año pasado bajo un contrato para la producción en consignación y un acuerdo de licencia que incluye dinero en bruto y finalización en febrero de este año. A través de esto, se han completado todas las preparaciones para la producción comercial, incluida la transferencia de recombinación de nanopartículas a base de proteínas y la tecnología del proceso de producción requerida para la producción de NVX-CoV2373.
Lo único que quiero decir y sobre todo pensando en los mas noveles, como el colega que comenta mas atrás que ha perdido una cantidad importante de dinero, que por cierto en esas circunstancias yo en tu lugar me habría agarrado a un clavo ardiendo, es que el mercado no se mueve por los resultados empresariales, se mueve por especulación y son muy repetitivos
Este es un grafico de PHM y viene como anillo al dedo:
Alguien empieza a acumular en 2.019, se comento en ese momento, le dan un impuso y en el primer momento de debilidad entra otra vez dinero, arriba sueltan, también se comento, luego siguen un juego parecido a NVAX hasta que finalmente sueltan, ahora yo estaría preparado para entrar donde la primera vez, si llegan, y ahí si conviene ver que pasa con la empresa, siguiendo ese proceso ahora el capital seria x6, sin embargo algunos esta en -80%
Viene como añillo al dedo porque es un calco de NVAX
#21425
Re: Novavax (NVAX): Un Nuevo Comienzo
El informe incluyó 147.597 casos de delta y 68.489 de omicrones, que se informaron entre el 27 de noviembre y el 17 de diciembre. Estudio hecho en menos de 7 días En la misma página más abajo estudios que indican la efectividad de la 3 dosis. En un articulo de esos se dice Advirtió que el análisis es "preliminar y altamente incierto" debido al pequeño número de pacientes con omicron en los hospitales y al hecho de que la mayoría estaban en grupos de edad más jóvenes.Hasta el 20 de diciembre, 132 personas habían sido admitidas en hospitales del Reino Unido con omicron confirmado. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9b6c831a-7909-3479-a379-e18760b3f783/u-k-dasupportsta--view.html En uno hay 132 casos en el otro 68489 casos, sólo para el estudio. Cómo cojones se pude uno informar en condiciones con esta panda de HDLGP
No usarás Konkorde e historias así para hablar de acumulación ???
Edito: cuando hablas de impulsos y que arriba sueltan (ellos), recordar que “ellos”, si nos atenemos a los libros gordos de Petete (ya tengo años leches) sueltan antes de esos picos, eso picos los suelen producir los pececillos, pajaritos, gacelas, llámanos como quieras, corriendo detrás de la liebre. Cuando ese impulso acaba, hace tiempo que “ellos” no están, y ya sabemos lo que viene después, la espantada. Ahora adivina adivinanza, cuando hay que subirse y cuando hay que bajarse
Paciencia.
Es difícil tenerla, pero trae muy buenos resultados.....
Buenos post de VX Veteran en el artículo de Sarel el corto. Comenta varias cosas que he puesto por aquí pero con muchos más detalles y por supuesto con la experiencia de haber trabajado en el sector. Le da hasta en el carnet de identidad. Además, viendo su modelo, tiene los datos mal y los múltiplos mínimos en la historia de las bio. Creo que haciedo las cuentas como en sus otros artículos (como pone en un comentario) le sale cerca de $400, vaya retard...
Aunque para mi gusto pone demasiado bien a la directiva, que no olvidemos que ha dado fechas no realistas una y otra vez además de querer abarcar demasiado.
Vx Veteran:
- The data released yesterday suggests NVAX’s current vaccine, Nuvaxovid (NVX-CoV2373), may be all you need for omicron, and possibly future variants. Their vx achieved the highest reported protection against the prototype (Wuhan) isolate with 2 doses. In a side-by-side neutralization assay, 3 doses provided the same high neutralization titer against omicron as the 2 doses did for prototype. Theses assays can be highly predictive of clinical results when you have a clinically validated benchmark, like Nuvaxovid’s clinical trial results. Thus, 3 doses of Nuvaxovid could protect against omicron at the same high levels achieved with 2 doses against prototype. The company has provided a sound scientific rationale as to why their vx, while based on the prototype’s spike sequence, would be more broadly protective than the mRNA and adenovirus vxs. This is the type of data that would justify another EUA in the US.
- NVAX is already manufacturing an omicron vx should it be needed and will be in the clinic shortly. The regulatory timeline will be much shorter than for Nuvaxovid. Because that vx has already demonstrated safety and efficacy, they won’t have to do a full-scale P3 clinical trial. Rather, similar to a generic, they will likely need to just show comparability to the original. A small safety study and showing that the new vx raises antibody titers known from the first trial to be protective (with, for example, the above neutralization assay) may be all that’s required. My guess is it could be done in 6 months or less. Pfizer said it can get their omicron vx approved in 4 months.
- NVAX’s manufacturing problems are behind them. The speculation to the contrary is ill-informed. In pharma you don’t file for regulatory approval until all your processes are locked down because the approvals are specific to the sites, all the process steps, and all the QA/QC. Changing things after approval is a BFD. The fact that they have filed means all problems are solved. Further, the company gave guidance earlier this year that by end of year they’d have capacity at 150M doses/month and would be able to make 2B doses in 2022. Under security laws they would have to update that guidance if there was a material change. They haven’t backed off.
- Before omicron, NVAX was poised to capture significant sales ex-US. AZ is the key competitor in those markets as the mRNA vxs are too difficult to deploy. Nuvaxovid’s efficacy & safety superiority to AZ and it’s ease of deployment (simple refrigeration & supplied in vials not requiring dilution) make it a clear winner in the developing world. Omicron, delta and the need for boosters, however, has greatly opened market opportunities in the developed world. While we don’t know how the bigger picture will turn out, it appears to be a pretty safe bet that NVAX will be able to sell everything they make since they’ll be the highest efficacy vx, more protective against current and future variants, the most benign side effects and the most easily deployed. And that demand will provide a bulwark against pricing pressure.
Further Information
First, I am a 40 year veteran of the biotech industry (yeah, pretty much the start) who’s worked across R&D and senior management. A considerable amount of that work has been in vxs. I’ve been involved in basic research, clinical trials, contract manufacturing, government relations, and legal matters, among others. I’m writing this because I’m being driven nuts by the nonsense about NVAX from folks who think the vx industry is like making widgets. For the record, I’m long on NVAX and believed enough in the vx to have volunteered for the US clinical trial. (I can personally attest to the mild side effects.)
Diving into yesterday’s data and conference call, here’s my take on it — it’s really good news for the stock and the world. The neutralization titer of Nuvaxovid for omicron relative to prototype after 2 doses was lower by less than 4-fold, but still relatively good. Pfizer’s was down greater than 25-fold. This is why press reports focusing on how many fold increase a booster provided cannot be a valid comparison among the vxs since each vx is starting from a different level. But the really exciting data is in slide 12. NVAX showed that they could get the same neutralization titer for omicron after a boost that they got for prototype after 2 doses. In other words, the high level of performance against the original virus was restored for omicron by one boost. The other vxs haven’t shown this (that I could find). These data are the results of a very stringent neutralization assay that is likely to correlate with real world performance. NVAX (academic collaborators actually) used a wild-type virus assay which means they used actual prototype and omicron viruses in the assays. They tested against the real deal. Moderna OTOH measured neutralization in a more common pseudo-virus assay – a non-coronavirus engineered to have the prototype or omicron spike protein. These are not as predictive as wild-type assays, but easier/cheaper/faster to do. Furthermore, the NVAX assay used a very stringent cut-off, 99% inhibition of infection. Moderna used only 50% inhibition, the standard ID50. Pfizer’s press release didn’t detail what neutralization assay they used, but I suspect it was the standard ID50. The point is NVAX set the bar very high in an assay most likely to predict results in the real world, and the prediction is that for omicron a boost will give something comparable to the 96-100% efficacy achieved in the UK and US/MX trials.
The significance of this data is underscored by the hastily organized conference call. If I had to guess, once the data came in they wanted to get it out ASAP because the group who knew about it was relatively large within and outside the company (remember collaborators did the assay). Companies get nervous sitting on material information a large group knows because of the risk of insider trading. Plus, it was highly material. Listening to the call I sensed excitement, but because of security laws they kept to a Sergeant Joe Friday “just the facts” presentation without connecting the dots as I’ve done here. They already have a bunch of parasitic shareholder derivative suits so it’s understandable if they are gun shy about saying anything that could be construed as pumping the stock.
The company also pointed out a compelling scientific rational as to why their vx would be more broadly effective. Unlike the mRNA and adenovirus vxs which only present a portion of the spike protein to the immune system (the portion which sticks out of the membrane expressing the mRNA or adenovirus vectors), Nuvaxovid presents the entire spike protein in a virus-like particle. An important target for neutralization is the receptor binding domain, which is the part sticking out for the other vxs. That’s also the region heavily mutated in omicron. The remainder of the spike protein in Nuvaxovid is also a site of neutralizing epitopes and that region is not heavily mutated in omicron. Think of the spike protein as a mop. Prototype’s business end is one of those classic janitor mops with the long cotton braids, and that’s what gets seen in the other vxs. Omicron, however, is a sponge mop. So antibodies to the cotton mop head are going to have trouble binding to it. OTOH, Nuvaxovid generates antibodies to the mop handle as well as the cotton mop head, so the omicron mop can still be neutralized.
-
Sarel, you’ve written some good stuff in the past, but this is based on really faulty assumptions. I’ve been senior management in companies like NVAX and apparently you don’t understand how they work or US security laws. NVAX is already dealing with shareholder derivative suits brought by parasitic law firms. Do you really think NVAX management and their lawyers want to go to jail for misleading investors on manufacturing? And hanging so much on finding a difference in “capacity” vs “capability” is not supported by the English language. Just today the CEO reaffirmed manufacturing guidance on Squawkbox. He has an obligation to update investors on any material change or go to jail.
You are wrong as to SII being a single source because both WHO and EMA have authorized Nuvaxovid, the NVAX manufactured vx.
The Politico article was BS. There was not a purity problem. The doses manufactured for the clinical trials had to be manufactured at acceptable purity levels and the same processes have to be used for commercial production because it has to be the same vx that was in the trials. It appears from what I’ve seen the issue was likely around release assays. You can spend months arguing with the FDA about what parameters need to be tested, what assays are used, and the range parameters have to fall within. That was even more complex for NVAX because of the multiple sites which need to all test the same - this is biology and there’s always a range of outcomes.
You apparently have no idea how pharma licensing works and just assume NVAX did a bad deal with SII. Why? Did you know that financial terms in these sorts of deals are almost always confidential? SII primarily makes old generic vxs on which they make pennies per dose. I’m sure they were salivating to get in on the COVID market. They did a deal with GSK, but that was a risky platform. NVAX significantly improved their odds. Just before the pandemic I was involved in a world-wide search for vx contract manufacturing. There is very little out there. NVAX had zero manufacturing in 2019 and has done an admirable job getting up to speed. SII is purely additive to NVAX revenues because whatever NVAX could bring online, SII was an extra billion doses. And don’t forget NVAX has zero cost of goods for the billion SII doses which dramatically affects their cash needs.
Please don’t join the chorus of no-nothings bashing NVAX for taking longer to market than the other vxs. I’m pretty sure that with the exception of those other COVID vxs, no other vx has been brought to market anywhere close to NVAX’s timeline. And they did that as an extremely small company with no commercial scale manufacturing capacity or expertise. Pfizer, J&J and AZ have enormous resources. (And AZ, which had little vx experience, made unforced errors in their clinical trials.) Moderna got the backing of US government who used the Defense Production Act to take away one of NVAX’s key contract manufacturers. NVAX surely had growing pains, but that little company has done something remarkable all on their own.
I think you’re disappointed to not have inputs for your model, but I can’t think of a company in a similar situation that would put out the information you want. Since under the security laws you have to update anything material you put out (or IRL anything one of those parasitic lawyers can argue is material), putting out lots of information can become a nightmare to police and open you to more lawsuits. Fortunately NVAX management is smarter than that.
I’m sure you’re more sophisticated at financial modeling than I, but I can’t see how this stock is going down. Something unanticipated would have to happen. My unsophisticated approach is to use Moderna’s valuation as a guide. NVAX’s data yesterday on omicron and delta was fantastic. (I’ll post separately on that.) IMHO they will sell every dose they can manufacture. Let’s take a conservative number like 1.8B doses. I’d be surprised if they don’t *net* at least $3/dose on average. For the sake of round numbers let’s call it $6B in earnings. Moderna’s forward looking P/E is about 10. So we’re talking something on the order of a $60B market cap, or more than 4x what it is today. I don’t pretend that analysis is quantitative, just a qualitative indication the stock is going north.
Sarel, you’re a smart guy. It’s obvious. You got things mostly right about the performance of the vx in the past when so many were just dead wrong. And there is nothing wrong with your analysis above. Unfortunately the inputs are wrong. I wouldn’t take the time to write this if I didn’t have a ton of respect for you. And if you think I’ve missed something or got something wrong, I’d want to hear it. Hell, I’d love to buy you a drink because you’ve been about the only person on here worth listening to.
-
Y este comentario va en la línea de lo que he comentado sobre tener el antígeno congelado y no finalizado y por eso no tienen inventario:
Sorry I wasn’t clear. Nuvaxovid *will* be made from drug substances and drug product made at other facilities other than SII’s. I’m unclear why following a logical, fastest path to market by sequential filings of approvals is a reason to short the stock. I and others have pointed out why filing all at once or stockpiling at risk is not how this business works. I get that you’re skeptical. But I can’t think of any similar case where a pharma didn’t come through in the end. And let’s get real as to risk - if SII can make the stuff, anybody can. I don’t think anybody in the industry would’ve expected them to stockpile hundreds of millions of doses before launch. That was a bad premise
-
El resumen (hay varias cosas que no estoy de acuerdo, pero en general muy buena lectura):
Folks, this has gotten pretty disjointed. So I’d like to summarize what I think are the key points as to whether there has been some sort of dramatic change to justify shorting NVAX. The straw men I propose to knock down are not just from the article. I’m addressing the topic more generally as well.
It appears that a primary theme is that NVAX management has put out misleading information or withheld material information that should not have been withheld with respect to manufacturing. Kind of a mini Theranos I guess. The folks promoting this are not experienced in the industry and don’t accept critiques of those with actual experience. These folks apparently don’t understand US securities laws and don’t explain why NVAX management would do such a sure to fail thing and risk going to jail. The author has even gone so far as to dismiss data from the U of Maryland School of Medicine alleging they are biased. The premise is simply far fetched to me.
Suggesting that NVAX should have filed for approval at multiple sites all at once, for example, bears no relationship to reality in this industry. Each application is huge, as has been pointed out. In an environment where everyone wants NVAX to move as quickly as possible, that would’ve added huge delays to getting to market. And if the company did file them all at once, you know what would happen? The regulators would’ve asked which one they want addressed first. It would’ve gained nothing. So if your investment thesis was that they would begin manufacturing at multiple sites around the world at high volume, it was ill-informed and wrong way before now.
Those suggesting they should’ve manufactured at risk a huge stockpile of vaccine before regulators agreed to all details of the manufacturing process also bears no relationship to reality in this industry. The very few examples of where something like that happened recently is when governments agreed to buy it no matter what, but you can bet that manufacturing did not begin until the process details were locked down. Pfizer’s new Covid drug, which is way cheaper to manufacture than a vaccine, is a good example. They only had a stockpile of 150,000 courses at approval (or shortly thereafter) even though it’s a fraction of the demand. I don’t think anyone in the industry would’ve assumed they would manufacture a large stockpile at risk. As an example, assume you have a release essay for a drug product or upstream drug substance where the company believes an acceptable release criterion is some parameter X measuring out in an assay to be between 1.0 and 1.5. If the regulator later decides that the appropriate release criterion is between 1.1 and 1.4, you have to throw everything you’ve made out. It’s not practical go and open every vial and retest it, nor even possible if it involved an upstream drug substance. And lets not forget that manufacturing has been delayed at times by the supply chain. So it’s on the person who assumed they would stockpile, not NVAX.
The hand ringing over NVAX sharing profits really baffles me. How is that a surprising development? NVAX had no manufacturing. There is almost no contract manufacturing available. They should be praised for all the partnerships they’ve done, every one of which is additive to revenue they could have made only on their own. They were never going to launch at scale early without partners. There is no evidence these were bad deals.
There’s lots of other bunk out there, like people saying mRNA is faster (NVAX took 92 days from sequence to shots in arm for a pandemic flu vx: i.e., no problem here) or that insect cell culture is difficult scale (reviews on recombinant expression systems list easy to scale as one of it’s strengths). I really feel sorry for the retail investor. Or the negative comments about insiders selling without realizing they are on defined trading plans under SEC rules that can’t be changed. My advice is that if you want to invest in biotech, do it through a fund.
Is there risk? Sure there is. Has there been some *unanticipated* dramatic change to risk that justifies changing from a long to a short? No. But there certainly is a change to risk because of omicron, and the data released by Novavax this week indicates that NVAX’s prospects are even better now than before. Sure bet? No because there can be truly unanticipated problems (e.g., Chiron’s entire flu vx production in 2004 was pulled from the market because of contamination in the UK plant) or execution failures. There’s a risk of rare side effects once you get to millions of vaccinees, but since their not making patient tissues immunogenic like mRNA and adenovirus vxs, and the long track record with subunit vxs, it’s probably lower. But the adjuvant is new. Will it take some time to ramp up? Possibly but I won’t be disappointed if they don’t make their nut in Q1 because I’m a long-term investor.
-
Aquí comenta varios de los puntos que he destacado en el pasado.
Mercado impredecible en la demanda, mucha política
Mejor vacuna
Para los boost, aunque la primera de NVAX no funcione tan bien (a corto plazo), las siguientes dosis deberían funcionar mejor (y va a haber siguientes)
The 2022 market is unpredictable if for no other reason than it’s unprecedented and undefined. Plus when governments are the ma in customers, politics can lead to irrationality.
But look at the relative strengths. NVAX has the vx with highest efficacy, lowest side effects, easiest to deploy, and preliminary data suggesting it has the broadest cross-variant protection.
That doesn’t happen very often. Competitive analysis suggests they’ll eat AZ’s lunch. It’s also the most straightforward to make into a multivalent, be it additional variants or flu. Since NVAX has not backed off it’s manufacturing projections, I’m sticking with it and expect they will sell everything they can make.
What about the heterologous booster market? Well the fabulous neutralization results for a homologous boost may not happen for the first NVAX boost of another vx if the proposed mechanism for NVAX’s superiority (neutralizing epitopes not in the other vxs) is correct. That’s because the boost would actually be the first dose of those NVAX epitopes. But since NVAX presumably has all the epitopes of the other vxs, it wouldn’t be any worse than a homologous boost, and it starts the patient down the path of getting more NVAX boosters. Wasn’t there handwringing by some about long term sales?
So if you want to short the stock based upon opinions of people who don’t understand the industry, go right ahead. But I wonder why people who know the field seem to be enthusiastic? In the meantime I’m looking at the ROI if I extend my 14 day free trial here. Right now I can’t see what’s in it for me reading the ridiculous bashings by numerous no-nothings. Sarel had been a bright spot, and I’d like to read his thoughts once NVAX gets into the market and he gets some hard inputs for his model.
Hablar de impulsos o “ellos” ya sabemos que es simplificar pero se entiende, todo lo que no sea nosotros son “ellos”, fondos, insiders, cuidador o la propia empresa, aparte que alguien que ande tradeando no le pidas que escriba mucho, dos líneas y con faltas de ortografía, el tiempo es oro y los malos hábitos perduran
Los indicadores siempre van con retraso no son santo de mi devoción y en cuanto al konkorde en este caso el Vigía, lo veo demasiado rápido y se puede meter fácilmente la pata
Entradas y salidas, es el precio el mejor indicador yo no utilizo otro
Aunque es verdad que un indicador sirve de apoyo en determinados momentos, ahora por ejemplo se ve muy bien cuando entro dinero antes de la subida
#21431
Re: Novavax (NVAX): Un Nuevo Comienzo
Me veo a Sarel poniéndose corto y, después de tanto empeño en el valor, justo entonces empezar a subir consistentemente...jejeje. Una "injusticia" común cuando se cambia de tesis de un día para otro.
Bueno, pero para que suba consistentemente tienen que darse un par de cosas. Producción más envíos y nuevos pedidos.
#21433
Re: Novavax (NVAX): Un Nuevo Comienzo
Así es...y cómo evolucione el "big picture", sigue habiendo muchas dudas con Ómicron. Mi impresión es que veremos una oleada de contagios sin precedentes a lo largo de las próximas semanas que nos pondrán los pies en la tierra en lo que a la pandemia se refiere. Esto hará ganar tiempo a Novavax, que es fundamental. Pero claro, como dices tiene que ponerse las pilas en lo relativo a producción, que también hay dudas que despejar. Me da la impresión de que el mercado, que suele adelantar acontecimientos, en este caso va con cierto retraso...manipulación quizá.
Se habla mucho últimamente, incluso por voces más técnicas científicamente de "fin de pandemia", pero poco de cuánto tiempo más harán falta vacunas masivamente en ese posible escenario tan optimista. Un "fin de pandemia" (que me cuesta creer) también va a necesitar vacunas unos años más. Una pregunta importante aquí es: Cuántas?
Es una tesis que parece simplista, pero en la que me apoyo, y que creo que Patoulax ha venido defendiendo desde hace tiempo.
A día de hoy veo mucho más riesgo ir corto que largo, por eso comentaba lo de Sarel, que me sorprende un poco.
Por supuesto no pierdo de vista que puede ser una tesis equivocada, y actuaré en consecuencia según acontecimientos.
#21434
Re: Novavax (NVAX): Un Nuevo Comienzo
5600 vuelos en todo el mundo cancelados por infecciones en pilotos y tripulación.
El escenario que se va a contagiar todo el mundo en un par de meses está descontado.
Como que es posible que después la mayoría de gente no necesite vacunas ya que el razonamiento es que la mayoría tiene cierta inmunidad y se está viendo con Omicron que eso hace que el número de hospitalizaciones y muertes se mantenga relativamente bajo (el % es menor que en pasadas olas).
Solo los >60 o quizás algo más abajo las necesitarían (y pediátricas si no han tenido).
Me parece muy venturado y optimista esta versión. Ojalá fuera así, pero hay probabilidades decentes de que haya nuevas olas con nuevas variantes y que mucha gente se quiera vacunar porque las consecuencias del covid pueden ser muy malas incluso si no se pasa de forma severa. Aparte que los gobiernos querrán mantener un stock de vacunas para lo que pudiera venir, y para eso es mucho mejor la tecnología de NVAX (y más barata en todos los sentidos no solo en la fabricación). Y la competencia tiene menos incentivos para entrar.
Lo de que se van a necesitar unos años lo hemos venido diciendo, pero Omicron ha cambiado el panorama en principio. Nadie sabe lo que va a pasar, pero con lo que capitaliza NVAX solo una falta total de la necesidad de vacunas (que no veo) tiraría mucho el precio. DE momento cotizará en un rango amplio de la estimación futura de ventas con mucho descuento. Porque las incertidumbres van a seguir.
Que aún haya gente que no se quiere vacunar es uno de los fracasos de la civilización y de la inteligencia humana...
"Just today alone, I admitted 4 post-COVID pulmonary emboli. Four. Out of a census of 18 patients.
Even if Omicron has lower mortality, if it has similar post-COVID hypercoagulability profiles as previous variants, we're in for major trouble.
One patient was even on rivaroxaban -BEFORE- developing the PEs.
I've never seen anything like this, ever, outside of genetic hypercoag states.
It's pretty variable, but in my experience it tends to be somewhere around 1 to 2 months after infection, but it seems to start around 2 weeks.
How is the threat of severe post-COVID side effects not in the national discussion? When a quarter of my admits are post-COVID, that's a problem.
I have answered this at least four times. I am not sure why it keeps being asked. None of them were vaccinated. I have only admitted one vaccinated patient in the past several weeks."
Completo con un estudio en NEJM que se ven los problemas causados por el covid, como hacía referencia los tweet que he puesto antes (la imagen es unacomparación pfizer covid):
El covid es muy chungo aunque lo quieran vender como la gripe o "mild"...
