Phx-Suns.Net

I clicked the link. It gave me three options to click in a foreign language. I clicked the one highlighted and got the article in what looks to be Greek to me.

I did a google search for pfizer ceo Bouria refuses to take Covid vaccine and couldn’t find anything with any quote of him saying he refuses to take the vaccine. The only quote I found was Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said that those who refuse to take a coronavirus vaccine will be the weak link which will allow the virus to spread again, CNBC reported on Tuesday.
In his statement, Bourla said that those who choose not to get vaccinated will not only affect their own lives, but the lives of others as well.

If a real team of disease experts say the vaccine is safe I won’t hesitate to take it. I have been vaccinated against all kinds of things in my travels and am still here. If Trumps coop of companies trying to make a vaccine came out with one that he endorsed before the election I would wait until real disease experts signed off on it and not “his” disease experts since I don’t trust anything he says or does and all his best people usually translates into “people willing to do anything he says no matter how unethical”.

If you translate the article, he says he would love to take it, but feel it should go to those more needing it.

Well that’s a little different than not wanting to take it. Though I guess he could be just using that as an excuse.

We’ll see what the trial says when it’s done, but if it shows the vaccine works without any major side effects, seems like a no-brainer to take it.

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:36 am

I hate vanguard. They take so much money in fees, and they don't perform nearly as well as other option. I am stuck with nearly a third of my retirement savings there and not a fan at all.

What are you talking about? Is this a joke post?

I was just watching some more on the vaccine. They want to inoculate those who are at high risk first by December and then start working their way through the population and hopefully be finished by March. That sounds a little optimistic and it was a Pfizer guy. We’ll see, it sounds like the CEO was saying what he was supposed to say. High risk people first, not CEOs. Although I’m sure if the CEO wanted to get inoculated now he could probably make that happen.

I was also listening and the whole vaccine sounds like a huge scientific breakthrough. They were talking about building a structure that they can swap out different genes or something depending on the virus such as AIDs and this one structure built a new way will be the building blockto all the next virus cures. I will try to find an article on it.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:00 am

If you translate the article, he says he would love to take it, but feel it should go to those more needing it.

What he said was he didn't know if the CDC would put him in the high-risk category, meaning he might not be in the first wave. He never said he won't take it like your original post intimated.

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:22 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:36 am

I hate vanguard. They take so much money in fees, and they don't perform nearly as well as other option. I am stuck with nearly a third of my retirement savings there and not a fan at all.

What are you talking about? Is this a joke post?

no why? did I miss something?

Nodack wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:14 pm

I was just watching some more on the vaccine. They want to inoculate those who are at high risk first by December and then start working their way through the population and hopefully be finished by March. That sounds a little optimistic and it was a Pfizer guy. We’ll see, it sounds like the CEO was saying what he was supposed to say. High risk people first, not CEOs. Although I’m sure if the CEO wanted to get inoculated now he could probably make that happen.

Not a good look for a CEO of a pharma company to be first in line for a vaccine to a disease that is killing certain at-risk populations every minute of every day, when he isn't in that population.

I'm all for the CEO of Pfizer taking the vaccine. If he's confident in it, takes it and doesn't have major side effects, then sign me up.

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:15 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:00 am

If you translate the article, he says he would love to take it, but feel it should go to those more needing it.

What he said was he didn't know if the CDC would put him in the high-risk category, meaning he might not be in the first wave. He never said he won't take it like your original post intimated.

If he and his company developed it, I don't see why he would have to wait for the CDC to approve him taking it first. He could take it before releasing it to the CDC for distribution. Let the chef try his own food first before serving all of us, imo.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:00 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:15 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:00 am

If you translate the article, he says he would love to take it, but feel it should go to those more needing it.

What he said was he didn't know if the CDC would put him in the high-risk category, meaning he might not be in the first wave. He never said he won't take it like your original post intimated.

If he and his company developed it, I don't see why he would have to wait for the CDC to approve him taking it first. He could take it before releasing it to the CDC for distribution. Let the chef try his own food first before serving all of us, imo.

I get what you are saying, but that is not how it works. You can't legally give a vaccine to someone before it is approved. And since they are looking to fast-track approval through an emergency use authorization, it can only be used in specific, defined ways. And since it will have to be rationed in the beginning, it will go to those that need it most (at-risk populations).

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:16 pm

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:22 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:36 am

I hate vanguard. They take so much money in fees, and they don't perform nearly as well as other option. I am stuck with nearly a third of my retirement savings there and not a fan at all.

What are you talking about? Is this a joke post?

no why? did I miss something?

I've had Vanguard for many years. They're one of the least expensive brokerages out there. All the others have been trying to catch up. No fee trades. Extremely low expense ratios. Are you talking about some kind of company retirement program?

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:39 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:16 pm

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:22 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:36 am

I hate vanguard. They take so much money in fees, and they don't perform nearly as well as other option. I am stuck with nearly a third of my retirement savings there and not a fan at all.

What are you talking about? Is this a joke post?

no why? did I miss something?

I've had Vanguard for many years. They're one of the least expensive brokerages out there. All the others have been trying to catch up. No fee trades. Extremely low expense ratios. Are you talking about some kind of company retirement program?

I have been stuck with them for about a decade now through my 401k. At least for the funds I can pick from through my 401k, they run an expense ratio of 0.06%. It isn't awful, but for basically index funds, they should be closer to 0.02%. That is a big difference.

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:13 pm

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:39 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:16 pm

Superbone wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:22 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:36 am

I hate vanguard. They take so much money in fees, and they don't perform nearly as well as other option. I am stuck with nearly a third of my retirement savings there and not a fan at all.

What are you talking about? Is this a joke post?

no why? did I miss something?

I've had Vanguard for many years. They're one of the least expensive brokerages out there. All the others have been trying to catch up. No fee trades. Extremely low expense ratios. Are you talking about some kind of company retirement program?

I have been stuck with them for about a decade now through my 401k. At least for the funds I can pick from through my 401k, they run an expense ratio of 0.06%. It isn't awful, but for basically index funds, they should be closer to 0.02%. That is a big difference.

So, they're worse than what somebody outside of Vanguard would pay? I think I'm paying 0.02% for VTSAX. But it is pretty funny that you're complaining about a 0.06% expense ratio. That's dang cheap.

I am not sure what you mean by inside or outside of Vanguard. When I look up VTSAX I see it has a published ratio of .03%. I would agree that 0.02% is very good, and 0.03 is still good. For my 401k, I only have a few dozen vanguard mutual funds and index funds to pick from, and unless I am talking about a mostly bond-heavy fund, the ratios are 0.06%.

Indy wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:27 am

I am not sure what you mean by inside or outside of Vanguard. When I look up VTSAX I see it has a published ratio of .03%. I would agree that 0.02% is very good, and 0.03 is still good. For my 401k, I only have a few dozen vanguard mutual funds and index funds to pick from, and unless I am talking about a mostly bond-heavy fund, the ratios are 0.06%.

Most work 401ks don't have a whole lot of offerings for 0.06% or better. First world problems.