Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
You might find changing the order to stop drinking and posting more effective.
Cheers.
I really do have to stop posting and drinking
How Di's they get slide 6 signed ogg.
Current text measures down to 4 wotzits
Their test down to 2 wotzits
That's a 50% improvement not 100%
I with to make a complaint (annonymously of course)
Interesting find, slide 9 is a cracker
I would be cautious about predicting 100% sensitivity for Avacta's POC antigen test, since antigen testing has always played second string to PCR testing which is regarded as the 'gold standard'. Even the closest competitor to Avata, Sona Nanotech, which all of you are already aware of, have stated in their on literature (May 25th) for their upcoming POC antigen test using their proprietary gold nano-rod technology which they say improves sensitivity of their test by 100%, it states that the limitation of antigen testing is "Sensitivity and specificity lower than PCR" (page 10).
https://sonanano.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Sona_Nanotech_investor_deck_May_2020.pdf
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Avacta’s test used by the govt army of track and tracers, they can quickly get them out to people and use them to firm up the current protocols. They are only testing those that have had contact with someone with Covid if they show symptoms. Everyone should isolate and I completely agree with you, but you can imagine the scene... ‘but I feel fine....’
If the LFD works as per the side of the tin, govt. will have to legislate for the asymptomatic.
If proven to have Covid-19, they will need to have their immediate future advised asap, - no arguments.
Oops, RD described. Apologies RD, credit where credit is due.
Yes, and there’s always that option to have additional PCR testing as RK described. As Avacta’s test is suitable for mass screening, it would make sense to have some follow up testing. Avacta would discover the asymptomatic who would be less likely to take a positive Covid result at face value.
Hopefully we’ll find out Avacta’s %s soon and we can consider how it might match up in the real world against the competition, balancing the potentially lower sensitivity against the improved sampling of drooling rather than swabbing.
Not a statistical biologist.
I like the post because it raises some interesting and relevant ideas although I didn't agree with the conclusion. The negative predictive value is 100%. So if the test says you haven't got it, you can be certain that you haven't got it. This eliminates 9,980 out of 10,000 candidates but further diagnosis of the ones flagged as positive would have to be done.
Evening David, just to provide the full illustration of why our test has been condemned as apparently useless. You can then make your own mind up. Using the exact example given.
If there was a population of 100,000 then 270 would have Covid = the prevalence of 0.27%. Of these, all 270 would be found as positive as it is 100% sensitive. That leaves 99,730. Of these, we would get 200 false positives using a specificity of 99.8%. This equates to the positive predictive value of 57% as stated = 270/(270+200).
My view. The suggestion that isolating an additional 200 people out of 100,000 would render a test useless, whilst capturing every true positive, is complete and utter nonsense.
Abdalian, thanks for the thought provoking post. If anyone, like me finds the concepts a bit tricky then the following link provides a lot of clarity.
https://uk.cochrane.org/news/sensitivity-and-specificity-explained-cochrane-uk-trainees-blog
PL75,
Ref "pulling rank", yes, Sir, he tried, yes, Sir, Sir!
"Incidentally, if the affimers are as highly specific as Sir Al has said they are (100%?) then the entire argument of false positives disappears as there are none". Absolutely!
I am filtered! I must have touched a nerve! "Strawman me"? It had been a while since I last heard that....2002?
Et j'ai crié, crié
Aline
Pour qu'elle revienne
Et j'ai pleuré, pleuré
Oh! J'avais trop de peine
;0)
ST
The might as well have just screamed ‘do you know who I am?’ and flounced out there and then.
I asked why false positives are an issue. Simple as that and next thing up popped an episode of This Is Your Life. RK provided a smashing example of why it’s irrelevant and I’m more inclined to believe Sir Al than some lowly statistical biologist.
GeneGenie- Thanks very much indeed.
Oh Lawd he's off again. Considering that this all started with a facetious comment from PL75, seems a little much that "I know what I'm talking about" could be read as professional dick swinging. Snowflakes gonna snowflake
Enteleon - way beyond anything I can speak to with confidence. An antigen test would be a useful first pass at picking up positive results, but an RNA sequence would be required to determine if the virus mutates into a number of strains.
If this virus does mutate, affimer tech would put Avacta's test in the driving seat again, with their proven ability to be fast to market. Silver linings...
ST, I must correct you. He didn’t pull rank, he tried to. My stats knowledge is perfectly fine, I’ve got qualifications and everything. I chose to ignore his profession d*-k swinging.
Incidentally, if the affimers are as highly specific as Sir Al has said they are (100%?) then the entire argument of false positives disappears as there are none.
Enteleon, my opinion fwiw is that immunity passports are the stupidest idea possible if the govt wants to protect the NHS. Putting aside the debate about how long immunity, if any, lasts - the instant anyone with antibodies gets any kind of preferential treatment, you’ll find Covid parties everywhere and the r value will surge a lot higher than 3.
ST,
You didn't have to strawman me with "all your alleged diplomas", that wasn't based on anything I said... It's interesting you chose to take that angle.
If you'd refer to the text of the comments from PL and myself I tried to do exactly that but the guy still doesn't believe that this test is capable of producing FPs, or that they would be relevant in any case, and is therefore mana from heaven. I'm prepared to wait for the outcome from Avacta regarding performance.
You can keep grinding on about one sarcastic comment if you choose, but I'd rather get on with my life. Filtered.
GG
GeneGenie- Thank you very much. May I ask a rather further-reaching question? If I Government wanted to build a substantial high-grade data-base for the purposes of: 1) issuing immunity passports 2) collating information for the administration of a vaccine; what features would enhance the statistical validity of any test results? Presumably, the highest quality test; the highest possible prevalence (in the epidemiological sense); repeated testing; some sort of reliable conduit for ascribing test results to any individual. Am I right, here?
My contention is that the test "market" will be horses for courses. Government will take a long view and focus on antibody testing; getting everybody back into offices, factories, shops etc will require repeated antigen testing. Depending on disease incidence waves, the former is likely to be more long-term than the latter. We still don't have a clear idea of exactly what immunity in conferred by antibodies and, for that, I suspect repeated antibody testing will be require.
Does any of this sound coherent to you ? Thanks again.
GenieGenie,
Really, anti-intellectual? You must really have tremendous ego, dude? I wasn't the one pulling ranks with PL75, was I. :0) Plus, I wasn't calling most people here muppets, or belittling 95% of investors on LSE, was I? No, I don't think so.
If you care to read some of the posts here, you would have observed through genuine empirical methods, that many, when they clearly know more than others, try to help clarify doubts and questions in a more humble manner. I can't remember anyone (Ah, there was one a while back, but he's gone now) who was, maybe you didn't realise it, that arrogant. That's all.
But that's ok, I forgive you.
St
Did a dummy sell 20 secs before bell & could sell £15k for 177.4. Good strong finish bodes well for tomorrow
@ST, it's a shame you feel that way. One tongue in cheek comment and you're off on the anti-intellectual express. I'm claiming absolutely nothing other than a basic understanding of how this test will be evaluated.
And yes, Ol' Buffett has rather spoiled his reputation lately, but a more appropriate legendary investor didn't readily spring to mind. I'm sure you understood the spirit of my statement
In that case your question sounds like a determination of PPV - the likelihood that a positive result is a true positive. All other things being equal the PPV goes up the higher the prevalence of the infection in the population.
For a worked example of PPV I'd refer you to abdalian's post at 11:16 that they got slated for. I'm not sure if their numbers are completely reflective of the current COVID19 reality, but they seem accurate as far as the calculation goes
@enteleon I'm no oracle here, but pretty much what PL75 said - The test is designed to confirm presence of antigens, not a clinical diagnosis. If the person is at the peak of their infection, they may not have antibodies. Two weeks later they may. I may test negative for antigens early in the infection, I may test positive a few days later. At various stages of infection the serum/saliva levels of targets will vary.
The test will have a Limit of Detection. The test's validated capabilities will inform the user about the extent to which a negative is 'a true negative, or the sample is below testable concentrations of the target'. This could be translated into a marketing description of validity such as "5 days before, 10 days post symptomatic onset" (for example)