 Hey, it's Anthony from Amplify Live. I hope you're having a good weekend so far. Just wanted to share a recording of a discussion I had in the Amplify Live community earlier this week, particularly focused on vaccines and the ongoing rollout program on a global level. Now, the reason why I wanted to share this is because it's such an important factor for what the rest of 2021 might look like. So having a bit more of a deeper understanding of the vaccines and how are things going and what are the things to look out for going forward is going to be really important to understand markets in 2021. So if you have any questions, leave a comment below. Don't forget to subscribe to the channel on YouTube. I really appreciate it and enjoy the session. Okay, so it's Wednesday, 3rd of February. I'm here with Mike Ivy, part of the Amplify Live community. So, yeah, I mean, last week, there was a point last week where I mean, I was getting fluttered with messages from lots of different people, market and non-market people asking me about GameStop and AMC and all these other things. And then there was news from a member from Novavax and then the J&J information. And I'm like, there's people dying right now. Yeah, the fate of the economy, which is a consequence people's jobs and livelihood. And we're sat here talking about Reddit and I did find that a difficult pill to swallow, but predominantly because I come as a macro person, I guess. But ultimately, I think we all kind of had the notion that this would be a short-lived thing. It creates a media response, of course, but ultimately for markets, as you know, the vaccine is the key almost for trying to pick a way through what the future might look like, particularly 2021. So I know you've done some slides and let me bring up, let's call it Exhibit A. So what do we have here? Brilliant. So I think we'll start, we'll just talk about the UK and then we'll broaden it out a bit. But so a couple of weeks ago, the Scottish government published on its website its projections for vaccine supply and the UK government went slightly nuts as they saw it as being sort of a strategic plan that they didn't want revealed to anyone. So the Scottish government actually backed down and usually offered an apology and took it off the website. Excuse me. And then actually last week, when relations weren't so good again, they were threatening to put the figures back up. Partly it was suggested to be helpful to the EU, partly to wind up the British government. I know whether that's still the plan, I'm not sure, but anyway, the point, the main point here is while these figures were up, we could actually see, because the Scottish plan is simply the UK plan, but just at a smaller scale, we could actually see what the UK plan is for vaccine distribution and vaccine supply. So you can see really that very early on in January, the UK is very, very dependent on the Pfizer vaccine, but going forward to June, which is where this ends, the AstraZeneca vaccine plays by far the biggest part in the UK vaccination programme. And then you can see at April, there's a little bit of Moderna vaccine coming through, but what's interesting about this is there's very, very little of it and it's not really arriving till April. And this actually has implications for the EU as well is that although both the UK and the EU have approved the Moderna vaccine, the US has really gobbled up all the supplies and there's nothing really coming through until, as you say, we've got April. And even then, going through May, June, it's only a very, very small part of the UK vaccination plan. Yeah, so this was definitely something that, I know that you've been talking about a lot, but I wanted people to be aware of was the composition of what different countries vaccine programme looks like, because determining then the impact value of a headline, like what we were seeing with this debacle with the Astra situation in Belgium and then how they were gonna take a protectionist stance and start doing XYZ from a European perspective, although that's kind of come and gone, it's important to understand then this type of level to pick through then, if there is a particular, away from the drug in itself and those previous discussions had on price and distribution, there's also the strategy and understanding that. Yes, yeah, I mean, I think just to digress a little bit, I was talking to, that's just my brother-in-law who negotiates pharma contracts. And when the EU came out and said, well, well, in firstly said, there was no, what they call best endeavours clause in the AstraZeneca contract. That was never going to be the case. That was never going to be the case. The vast majority of pharma contracts have what they call best endeavour clauses. So the only way a pharma will enter into a contract with someone is by saying, well, we will do our very best. Otherwise they were just, they're not interested. So when von der Leyen said, well, there's no best endeavours clause that in itself, that was very unlikely. And then when they published the actual contract, it was in there. So she was actually wrong about it. Because I don't know if she didn't know or it seemed a very strange thing to say because all farmers cover their arses essentially with these clauses about best endeavours. And then there was, and the same thing with Pfizer. Remember, it's not just Astra who have said, well, there'll be a delay to vaccines going to EU. Pfizer have said the same thing and Moderna have said the same thing. So they're all having different problems with ramping up the production, but all of these companies will have these best endeavour clauses in their contracts. And I see the Italians were thinking about taking Pfizer to court. And my view is the Pfizer lawyers will wipe the floor with them. And actually, I think von der Leyen has recently, I think yesterday, walked back from this. So whether it's on legal advice or she's decided to become a mate of the farm companies, I'm not sure, but I find that the prospect of the EU taking any of these companies to court is very, very remote. So a lot of this to me is coming from a political place where this is all just posturing. They will know the legal stance of this and the likelihood of it being successful in court, as you say, is nil. So that's not the point though. So I guess they're just saying it, particularly coming from somewhere like Italy. I can almost imagine the types of Italian politicians who would say that, cajoling sentiment in a politically disruptive period. It's a great target, right? To have another stab at your potential leadership by saying it's them, it's them point the finger to therefore become more favourable. So that makes sense. But I guess it's kind of now we've moved on, right? So now, so what's next? Okay, so if we go to the next slide. So what we're able to do from the first slide, and this is what Sky did the analysis of this a couple of weeks ago, is taking the Scottish figures. We can work out what the UK figures are and looking forward using the actual numbers. So that graph is actually supplied with the exact numbers in a supporting document by the Scottish government. You can work out exactly when the UK government is planning to have the whole of the UK population vaccinated. And if you add up all these numbers, you get to a point in the middle of July when the government will have sufficient, UK government will have sufficient doses for the entire UK adult population. That's two doses. So if everything goes well, by the middle of July, either everyone will have been vaccinated or everyone will have been able to be vaccinated. So the Scottish did a sort of favour because they sort of, they showed us the plan. They also showed everybody else the plan, including the EU, who could see that there are all these Astra vaccine doses that they didn't have access to. I think that was part of the problem, really. So the first question on here is, let's say 105 million doses in the entire UK adult population mid-July. Yeah. How does that sit for you in terms of a calendar timing in terms of its delivery? Is that good, bad, indifferent? How do you kind of see that? I mean, I can think about the follow-up questions on risks to obviously this projected trajectory. But first of all, mid-July would be good? Yeah. Well, I think as a target, it's realistic. And I think they're on track. I mean, we know that they want to do 15 million doses by the middle of February. That plan seems to be broadly on track and I've no reason to bar sort of supply interruptions. I have no reason to think why this isn't achievable. And I think that's the other thing. I think the government was nervous that the EU would block exports of the Pfizer vaccine when there are a lot of UK pensioners, people over the age of 80. So the Pfizer vaccine in the UK went to the very most vulnerable at the beginning. It's actually still saying. So there are people over the age of 80 and there's certainly a thought that the UK government was worried that they would not be able to give the most vulnerable, the oldest over the age of 80 or 85, their second doses. But it seems that that's de-escalated and the EU seems to be saying, yeah, you can have the Pfizer doses. The Pfizer doses remember are made in Belgium and the EU seems to be saying, no, you can have those doses, it's fine. So they'd have walked back from that. So, and there are, one of the reasons this is important is nobody really knows about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine outside of its stated parameters. So we know that it works incredibly well if you give two doses three weeks apart. Nobody has a clue what happens if you just give one dose or if you give one dose 12 weeks apart. That's the risky bit of the UK strategy. And this was what we got a little bit of color on because I was looking at last night, I just happened to be at my desk and I was looking at the Oxford Astra data as it was coming out. And it was giving exactly what you were just talking about there, the efficacy rates between the week, like three and 12 and then post 12 weeks on the second shot, efficacy rate went up. And then obviously legitimizing the UK's strategy on deploying the first shot first, as many as possible, and then top out. Well, I think, yeah. So the point about this, they call it pre-print. So the pre-print data from AstraZeneca, which was in the Lancet. So it's subject to review, I think is the point of that's what a pre-print is. But what essentially they were doing was publishing the data from which the government had made its strategy. So the government has seen this data and made its strategy on the basis of this data. So it doesn't so much support what the government is saying. The government was working from it when it made its strategy. So the government had all this information. And actually it seems to be a reasonably clever plan with regard to the AstraZeneca vaccine. And more generally, I think there seems to be evidence that the adenovirus vaccines, I'm talking about Johnson and Johnson, Sputnik and AstraZeneca, there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that protection ramps up over time. And it may be something to do with the fact that the vector, the delivery vector in itself produces some sort of immune or T cell response. It's very difficult to be sure about that, but it's certainly possible. And this is in a way that the mRNA vaccines perhaps don't because they're using a different mechanism. But... It's funny, it's like the tortoises and the hare. It was like, it was so bullish on the first to market and this kind of the Moderna Pfizer-BioNTech. And now kind of what you were saying, I guess, going all the way back to that session we did when you were talking about the list and everything that was in the pipeline and then the single dose J&J, that could be an interesting one. And that's only just come really with information now or some several months later. It's interesting how the kind of landscapes changed a little bit. It has. And I think the... So the mRNA vaccines have incredible upfront efficacy. So they're 95% effective, whereas the adenovirus one seems to be slightly less effective. But I think maybe there's much more to it. And I think you alluded to this, you've alluded to this several times, that it's just not the headline efficacy rate that matters. You need to look at things like what happens if you only give a single dose? What happens over a period of time? And what happens with infection transmission rates? And I think the jury is still out on all that. And we really only know in six months or a year's time, which is the best approach. So yeah, it's a lot to play for. One question then, just quickly on this graphic before we move on, is how large is the risk of what? A lot of the mainstream media is focused on at the moment, which is the kind of a mutation on the mutation. It's kind of like the new variant of the UK variant that was already different from the initial COVID breakout that we had back in March. So I think the UK government's response in my view has been pretty quick to kind of ramp up testing in these specific areas which they've identified. But how much of a risk then is this whole idea, which has always been an ever-present key risk, which is the vaccine efficacy weakens, because we've seen with some of the data that has come out, the vaccine has a different efficacy rate dependent on the South African variant, the UK variant, other variants, and that if it then further mutations happen with time, is that the key risk that could destabilize this trajectory? No, I don't think it will destabilize the rollout this year. So yeah, there are some mutations which, and as you say, one they're worried about now is the sort of South African mutation of the Kent virus. But the thing about these vaccines is they're doing a number of things. So ideally, first thing they're doing is stopping you getting the virus. The second thing they're doing is stopping you getting ill, then they're stopping you getting hospitalized, and then they're stopping you dying. And the current crop of vaccines will do, with the mutations that are around, they will probably do most of what's required, which is stopping you getting really ill, stopping you getting hospitalized, and stopping you getting dying. So that's actually, in a sense, the most important thing. That was exactly, yeah. It may be more likely that you actually get the virus, but it's probably still quite unlikely that you'll become ill or seriously ill. Yeah, and that was a really key thing that I saw when the J and J numbers were snapped last week, which is that when it came to the latter part of that kind of process as you described, which is serious illness in hospital and death, it was basically 100% effective. Yeah, well, all of the viruses to date, so I think we've got six, people are looking at six of these. So you took the two mRNA vaccines, the Novavax vaccine, the AstraZeneca vaccine, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine and Sputnik, there are no instances of deaths in hospitals or admission to ICU units or serious illness in hospital. So they, across the board, they're 100% effective in that regard. And you could say, well, that's job done. If these viruses are 100% effective in stopping people from getting seriously ill and ending up in the ICU and then dying, they're incredibly effective. So I think we're not at the point yet, but we'll come onto it a bit later about some boosters and things. But I don't think the government's vaccination strategy is at risk probably this year from these mutations. So it's an important thing bringing this into an intraday environment just to kind of really hit home that point from what you've discussed and then the way that the news came out. And that's a function, I think, of news agencies. They're always gonna snap what is deemed as kind of like your headline-changing non-form payroll figure, which is the overall efficacy rate, which isn't necessarily the be on end all. And what was so interesting about that move last week and what I really want people to be careful of is the immediate knee-jerk reaction that you see in the immediate aftermath of that headline hitting the tape to then the rational response, if you wanna call it that, which is the more, as we've just described, which is looking through the numbers and eventually that move was very short-lived. So, okay, so should we move on to- But let's move on. Okay. So I think just briefly, we're just look at the UK sort of portfolio of life. So these are the drugs on order. You can see again, the Astra, the Oxford Astra is a big number of doses and the point, the major upside for this vaccine is it's manufactured in two plants in the UK and it's bottled in a plant in Wales. So it's largely UK-based for both production and distribution. So you shouldn't really have problems with supply chains. They seem to be getting better at making it and getting faster. So that's incredibly good news. And obviously the data, the new data around the vaccine is incredibly promising as well. So that's good news. The Janssen is the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which they've got the UK government sort of 30 million. The downside with the Janssen J&J is, again, there's a production delay and they're two months behind where they wanted to. I mean, I think that supplies to Europe will probably not really start to happen till April, maybe March, but April, and it will only be to begin with in fairly small quantities. So whether in Q1, Johnson and Johnson will make no difference to the UK, possibly not even Q2. So it's a sort of mid-year, end-of-year event really. And so they've got these doses, how they'll use them isn't clear to me if by the middle of July, the population's already been vaccinated. So we'll just have to, we'll see. So it's what, I guess it's insurance policy. Yeah, exactly. With a cost obviously, but I guess it makes sense. Yeah, I mean, and I think there is, you can argue that actually the acquisition strategy has been incredibly clever, which is investing in all of these different vaccines using a sort of private equity model. One or two of them will come through it and one or two of them, you're probably not going to end up using. And actually that's a fair enough way to do it, I think. So it's expensive. I think it spent what, was it 12 billion pounds on vaccines or something like that? It's expensive, but if it's the only way to rescue your economy, it's probably good value. So just going down the list. So they've ordered 40 million Pfizer vaccines. Again, there is a production delay with Pfizer because they're redoing their Belgium factory. So when these feed through is not clear to me now, Moderna, they've ordered 17 million. Again, most of the Moderna supply is going to the US and we saw in the vaccine acquisition strategy that this doesn't start to trickle through till April, May anyway, and only small quantities. So Moderna have big manufacturing problems because they've never done it before. So they're saying there are delays as well. So on top of the vaccine strategy that the UK government has, that you probably actually have to factor in more delays there on the back of what Moderna was saying last week. Moving down, the Sinovac vaccine is delayed, I think by six months. So I don't think we're going to see that this year. Novavax will see Q3 probably and Valneva, I'm not sure. They've ordered interestingly. So Valneva is a sort of, is it Austrian-French company? I forget, but so they've got a production plot now in Scotland and the government's just ordered, the UK government's just ordered another 40 million doses. So they've got some like a hundred million doses on order of this vaccine, which hasn't been approved. And I'm not quite sure again what they'll use it for because by the time it turns up everyone should have been vaccinated. But anyway, we'll see whether it then becomes something to export. It's not clear to me, but they're well covered. So in terms of doses, they're well covered but it's the Oxford vaccine. It's the one that's going to be doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of the initial vaccination strategy going up to July. I'm just thinking probably the, I'm sure there's some association then with the fact that it's up in Scotland with it. Yes. Yeah. There's a little bit of a political backdrop to that, I'm sure. Yeah, I think that's right. Okay, so we have slightly covered this, but the preprint as we said of the AstraZeneca data yesterday sort of underlines the government's case that the 12 weeks or more is actually the ideal timeline the ideal space between two doses. So yes, 82.4% efficacy with 12 or more weeks between the doses. Interestingly, the 76% efficacy after a single dose is quite interesting because I, what's been crossing my mind is actually because this is a similar vaccine to the J and J is whether really you could market either as a single dose vaccine or if the J and J and they're doing trials apparently as a two dose vaccine you could, you probably get a 90% or an 80% efficacy with it as a two dose vaccine, whether actually they're the same thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You tell the AstraZeneca dose and the J and J as a double dose. And same as Sputnik actually because these vaccines seem to be so similar. So be interesting to see how that sort of pans out really, but it's good news, certainly good news that you get this very, very high degree of efficacy after a single dose and the government strategy seems to be well thought out about being able to leave it for three months. Getting back to the Pfizer vaccine where there's no data to support this gap between vaccination. A lot of the doctors in the UK have actually, my understanding has actually been ignoring the government's advice and been giving patients the second dose of Pfizer vaccine three weeks after the first. My mother who is 87 has had her two Pfizer doses three weeks apart because her GP said, well, no, the government's talking nonsense. You've got to have that. So everyone in her sort of area who is her age have had their two doses of Pfizer. And it'd be interesting to see if the government rose back on the Pfizer front. There's just no data to support it as a dosing strategy. There is, we have the data on AstraZeneca and it seems to be very clever. Pfizer, I'm not so sure. So we will see if there are any changes to that. So with the US being Moderna Pfizer focused, not that we're going to delve into that too much. What was their thinking there? Was it a reflection of a fairly lack of thought behind the strategy given Trump was distracted by other things like holding, trying to win a second term. And obviously the program felt a bit piecemeal on how it was being put together. And was it more for Trump about politically being able to publicly say, we've got the first vaccines. He was going for a different type of strategy. The underlying deployment and program rollout was secondary to the political payoff of being able to stand there and say, we've got the world's first vaccines. We're going to get it first. We're going to deploy them first. And so they've kind of, they're stuck in this. They've preloaded now themselves down the Moderna Pfizer route. Did you see any like that? Yeah, I don't think, the US has had a lot of problem from the sort of distribution perspective. And the whole thing seems to be done absolutely chaotically, but now seems to be sort of gradually getting together. In terms of the choice of vaccines, I mean, they're both, you know, the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines are excellent vaccines. The production is sort of, is domestic. So that makes things easier. There's this freezer problem, but a first world country should be able to get around that. I don't know, I was wondering if at some point they had a falling out with AstraZeneca because I think Trump was incredibly keen to have a vaccine, as we know, approved before the election. Yeah. And there was some talk that he wanted to lean on AstraZeneca to sort of come up with data, which would enable him to do this. And there was some talk at the time that they refused to do so. And I wonder at that point whether they then went to the back of the queue. So I'm not absolutely sure about that, but it's certainly at one point Trump was cheerleading for AstraZeneca and then that all stopped. But it does actually make sense for the US to go for these vaccines because, well, they can afford them. These are obviously expensive vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna. They've got the infrastructure and they've got the production facilities. So it's not a bad strategy. It's been copped up on the distribution side, not the acquisition side. Of course, so should we move on to what the EU is looking like? Yeah, so this is where it gets messy, should we say. So this is from the EU website. The commission has secured 2.3 billion doses. Well, let's take Pfizer. So up to 600 million doses. Well, at the minute, this is completely delayed because the majority of the EU vaccines are made in this one plant in Belgium. The plant is being upgraded. So supplies of ground to a halt. Also, they've actually got an initial order of 300 million doses. And I think recently they said, well, we want another 300, but that will be a Q3 or even a Q4 event. So it's gonna come so late that it's not possibly going to affect. It's not gonna be able to impact on their immediate needs. So 600 million doses, okay, but you're not getting any at the minute because the factory's not working. And a lot of that you're not gonna get until the end of the year because that's the only time that Pfizer can supply them. Moderna up to 160 million doses. Well, again, the US is getting all of that supply at the minute. And that won't start to trickle through as the EU, I think, till spring summer. So no, if you just K is up to 300 million doses, that's delayed by six months. That's not happening anytime soon. Johnson and Johnson delayed by two months. So they're not gonna get these any Johnson and Johnson, I think till, I think von der Leyen said it would start in April, but I think they'll get very, very few doses in April while J&J ramps up. So again, this is moving to back in the Q2, Q3, Q4. CureVac hasn't been approved yet, I think. And AstraZeneca, well, we know about AstraZeneca. So 2.3 billion doses, but none anytime soon. And actually when you see it broken down like this, it's quite easy to see then that Europe doesn't have anywhere to go when it comes to playing games with any distribution of drugs into the UK then. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's not a great picture. And the point about the Astra, I mean, the whole Astra story is very unfortunate. And the point should be made that actually the UK production was delayed by two or three months while they were sorting out the production here. So the UK government was expecting, expecting I think to have 20 million doses by Christmas and it had one million or something because of the production delay. So it's not just the EU that's been affected by Astra production delays. It's just not easy to do this. So I think the next couple of months are going to be very awkward for the EU because there's just not going to be a lot of vaccine coming through. That's interesting. Yeah, I mean, when we had the original spring 2020 outbreak, it was, you know, I remember France being very quick to adopt a fairly stringent lockdown. Yeah. And obviously at that point Boris was either, I can't remember if it was he on holiday Mauritius or was he, he was shaking everyone's hands. You know, we'll squash the sombrero because we're still being caught. Yes, that's right. But it's amazing how that's flipped really and I don't know whether it's just been fortunate or lack of, you know, there's lots of variables obviously to input how complicated this rollout is. But it's amazing how the tables have turned from the beginning to where we're at right now. And I think politically, your Boris Johnson has always been very lucky. I mean, he's a lucky, lucky politician. And, you know, in a year's time, it is entirely conceivable to me that people would have forgotten about the horrendous number of deaths and they'll be talking about a successful vaccine strategy. And it will all be sort of forgotten, you know, this, this, the deaths in the care homes and, you know, the utter catastrophe of some of the government policymaking because they got the vaccine done. And to be fair, it will not have been an inconsolable achievement if they do it. So, you know, but we'll see, we'll see, but so far so good. So the final bit. So then, yeah, so one of the things that, you know, we've talked about last time and it's still my view is it's not clear to me that any of the vaccine manufacturers are going to make any money out of this. So if I take Pfizer results yesterday, they were saying, well, you know, our vaccine with the, so they've increased the numbers this year that they can produce from 1.3 billion to 2 billion. And they say, well, it will add 10 cents to our EPS this year, which really isn't for a company the size of Pfizer, you know, it's nothing. And I think the shares fell yesterday by 2% following the, following the earnings. So, you know, and obviously Pfizer, one of the more successful people at getting their vaccine approved and manufactured and then distributed. So, you know, Astra aren't going to make any money out of it. GENJ is a huge company. I just, you know, it just, the vaccine just won't move the needle in terms of their earnings. Moderna have production problems potentially because their vaccine is expensive. They might earn some money, but as an investor, you look at the valuation of Moderna and it's $40 billion or something. They're a company with one product and they have a technology mRNA, which they don't own. So, you know, Astra are working on mRNA vaccines. Jack says, Smith, Klein are working on mRNA vaccines. It's not unique to Moderna. So, it's not clear to me where they go next, how you can justify, are they going to make $40 billion out of this vaccine? No, they're not. How do you get to that valuation? And I think it's pretty tricky. Same with BioNTech, it's a massive value valuation now. And you just think as an investor, well, I'm not going to touch that valuation. So, the small, in my view, the small farmers making vaccines are overvalued and the large farmers, the vaccine doesn't make enough, doesn't make enough, big enough difference to them, to alter their valuations. So, which brings us on to, well, how might the pharma companies make some money? And I think what we're moving to now is it's very clear because of these mutations that there are going to have to be boosters. And we know that they're all now working on boosters. Just going back a second. The other thing, looking at the UK vaccine orders, several people have made the observation that towards the end of the year, there's going to be a vaccine glut. There are going to be so many vaccines circulating west that everybody could have five doses. So, a lot of these things won't be distributed, won't be sold because we won't need them. So, that's another reason why farmers may not make the money that they think they're going to make because they have an unsold vaccine. So, what do they think about? Farmers are now thinking about, right, well, let's try and make some money out of boosters. And what is there an interesting thing about, well, is what does an ideal booster look like? And the bottom line here is the person who gets this right might be the farmer that gets this right, might be the farmer that cleans up and actually does actually make some money out of, every year from their booster shop, but it's going to have to be cheap, maybe $5. Ideally, it's going to be a single dose. Ideally, it's going to ship and store at room temperature for easy distribution, obviously very few side effects and as close as possible to being 100% effective. Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax, Astra are all currently working on these boosters. And it'd be interesting, I've no idea who will get it right, but whoever gets closest to this sort of mix of ideal, this ideal scenario must have a good chance of selling that an awful lot of them. There are one thing to think about is the UK already has an ideal distribution mechanism for boosters because it doesn't every year the flu vaccine. So last October, November, I think something like 30 million people in the UK got flu vaccines at either their pharmacy or their GP. And it costs the government 10 pounds. So the actual vaccine is about four pounds and then they pay the pharmacist or the GP five or six pounds to administer the dose. So it works brilliantly. Why they didn't do this in the first place with the vaccines, I'm not sure. Why we need these big vaccination centres when as a model pharmacist and GP's works incredibly well, I don't know, but anyway. But I think going forward, that would be the way to do it is you're using the pharmacists and the GPs to give these booster shots. And the ideal way of doing this is you have a combined flu and coronavirus shot, which is perfectly feasible technically. So both Novavax and Moderna are working on a joint COVID flu shot. And it makes sense. So every year when you go through a flu vaccine in the test tube of these two, well in the syringe rather, these two vaccines flu and COVID. And it could be that that's what happens. And if one of these farmers comes up with a cheap joint flu and COVID shot, they should clean up.