Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Novavax gains as CDC endorses COVID-19 shot (update)

Jul. 19, 2022 10:52 PM ETNovavax, Inc. (NVAX)PFE, MRNA, BNTXBy: Dulan Lokuwithana, SA News Editor23 Comments

Germany Begins Novavax Covid Vaccinations

Carsten Koall/Getty Images News

Update: Moments after an influential advisory committee of the CDC recommended the Novavax (NASDAQ:NVAX) COVID-19 vaccine, the Director of the agency, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, endorsed its decision on Tuesday, allowing nationwide immunizations with the protein-based shot to begin.

Recommended For You

Comments (23)

Have a tip? Submit confidentially to our News team. Found a factual error? Report here.

sts66 profile picture
Since when does CDC endorse a vaccine *after* FDA has already given it EUA? Sorta pointless, eh? But this blurb reads as if the CDC is the agency actually in control of a vaccine given EUA by FDA - meaning they have to bless it before anyone can get it - that sounds odd - usually FDA has the final word - maybe because the Feds are paying for the vaccine that makes things different?
Iv72 profile picture
20 Jul. 2022
@sts66 in this case CDC is the buyer agent, so yeah, they have some control.
Iv72 profile picture
20 Jul. 2022
Very interesting how CDC made the decision almost immediately unlike FDA that was dragging for months, and delayed the decision on NVAX as much as possible even after VRBPAC vote. Talk about politics, corruption, and Pfizer control over FDA..
@Iv72 agree. Very lame. I can't comment on any Pfizer, FDA - and any foul play or politics but super lame for the American public nonetheless. As public servants, inexcusable. As a small company I guess we give Novavax some credit for navigating this...albeit later than ideal.
@curbyourrisq Not sure how old you are but I am sure modern medicine has done nothing to extend your life or keep horrible life-killing diseases and viruses from putting you 6 feet under before the age of 40. People certainly lived longer lives in 1920 than they do today. Of course! And the records show that life expectancy because of modern medicine is actually shrinking over the decades. Yes! We need people like you to remind us of that. Thank you.
Doc 224899 profile picture
@PongGuy You are making an error by looking at life expectancy in the entire population to reflect modern medicine's ability to extend your life or keep horrible life-killing diseases and viruses from putting you 6 feet under before the age of 40. Those are two different processes.

We are able to treat neonatal and childhood diseases much more effectively now than we in the 1920's, no doubt about it.

We also treat disorders that arise during pregnancy, labor, and delivery more effectively than we did in the 1920's, no doubt there, either.

We also have increased life expectancy for people who have diseases of all ages who have diseases carrying higher risks of imminent mortality, increasing the number of people of all ages that have high mortality diseases.

As a consequence, there are more people in the entire population who survive in spite of their constitutional frailties and diseases with high risk of imminent mortality, so there are more people alive in the population OF ALL AGES that have increased risks for early deaths.

Therefore, this is one of those situations where life expectancy in the entire population is shortened because modern medicine IS better.

In the simplest of terms, modern medicine has resulted in our having higher percentage of individuals in the herd who would not have survived 100 years ago, so the entire herd is on average more frail, less fit, and less healthy, and therefore more likely to die.

So, a statistic that DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODERN MEDICINE is life expectancy in the entire population.
@Doc 224899 nice hair splitting. Here is what I know. A good, healthy friend of mine died (age 55) of COVID before the vax was available. Again - a healthy athlete. Had he had a 2 dose vax I would wager a LOT of money that he would still be alive. Those that say the vax is poison or that it costs lives are insane and should be called out IMO. Case closed. You may be talking about a different topic but I was making a broad analogy to make my point about the covid vax and other treatments for that matter. They save lives.
@Doc 224899 Statistics is not a measure of anything... it is all variable based and you can get whatever result you want with a simple tweak of the inputs. Also - making assumptions is a fatal flaw of statistics.

We have lies, damned lies, and statistics. For this very reason... STATISTICS are not facts, just perceived points one chooses to use in an argument, most likely when the facts do not fit a narrative.
The world seems to be always half empty to some. What are your first thoughts when you wake up in the morning.
@mo’ widgets This time is different. LOL! The recent flood of good news should have driven the share price to over at least $200. I understand. Twice bitten, thrice shy, over the past 30 years! Nonetheless, patience is a virtue. Just you wait and see. Don’t sell your shares now.
Seems like a sure lock on profit. Bought mid day, last Friday, 49.75, and again at $50.42. Should be good to go and looking forward to Q2 earnings that should roll out early August.
smikhail profile picture
What's COVID?
Sticking with Pfizer.
NVAX is late. Data not clear. Never had a commercially successful vaccine in the 30+ years in business
LT Capital Gains profile picture
@mauryeel Do you not trust the CDC?
@LT Capital Gains the issue is that this management team is garbage and can't be trusted. That's what mauryeel is saying.
MikaelJ profile picture
@Johnny Lawrence better cover
Approving poison... yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, that's what the FDC and CDC do... they approve poisons.

The European agencies do the same.... in fact, most of the World approves poisons to give to humans.

Just keep the foil hat on and you'll be fine.
@Fundamental Trader with the FDA and CDCreceivimg funding from pharma and the constant movement of those employees landing nice paying jobs at big pharma, do you not see this as a massive conflict of interest?
sts66 profile picture
@calendarspread Only one person has the power to unilaterally approve or prevent approval of a drug - the FDA commissioner - yeah, there's a revolving door of employees switching sides, but their influence isn't nearly as strong as you think unless they're way up the food chain in the FDA.
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.