InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 43
Posts 4325
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/01/2017

Re: biosectinvestor post# 563231

Monday, 01/30/2023 1:45:08 AM

Monday, January 30, 2023 1:45:08 AM

Post# of 709790
While I think the technology exists to produce vaccine in a distributed network of sites, imo there are very strong reasons to self limit production to as few as two sites initially and possibly for a long time if ever distributed production at more than 2, max of 3, production facilities.

Quality production and storage of priceless vaccine and tissue, and the transportation means, is extremely important. Quality must be maintained at the highest level before, during, and after, vaccine is produced. It’s much easier to focus on a couple of production and distribution infrastructure than the loss of control, complications, and increased chances of errors and/or incidents, and probably less costly as well.

More sites, more people, more local managements, more differences of all types, to deal with and not be subject to all manner of anomalies.

More space/cryogenics and replication to drive costs up as well.

Sometime in the future with years of experience under one’s belt the assessment may change, but for now and the first years of production sticking with at most 2 production sites is best imo, and why increase the overhead and difficulty if production capacity is enough?
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News