I think so too, but do you know? I mean, only a few per cent of infectees require much medicine, and Pfizer's market share won't be 100% of that. It's not obvious that x>y.
Anyway, he may also well be thinking that the best policy is to have a history of assessments that turn out to be correct in hindsight. "Drop restrictions when the number of infections declines" is at least plausible.
Paxlovid is interesting in that it is only really effective if you take it as soon as you show any symptoms. Once production is scaled up, hundreds of millions of courses of treatment will be sold. Each around 100x more expensive than a vaccine dose.
It will soon be Pfizer's financial benefit to have as many infections as possible.
Anyway, he may also well be thinking that the best policy is to have a history of assessments that turn out to be correct in hindsight. "Drop restrictions when the number of infections declines" is at least plausible.