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.
That wasn’t a blatant bump, this was. Still haven’t got close to 100...
I was board yesterday too
Thread bump for Canute...
Re: rapid test thread.... it doesn’t need a change in thinking, Awacta’s test will be the best of all worlds. That’s the jist of my waffle. The FDA know about Awacta, why would they change their opinion if they know that tests that pass their hurdles are on the way? Supporting Michael Mina would suggest the FDA will approve any and every antigen test. Given they’ve taken away EUAs for poor tests, I can’t see it happening.
CS,
We are forgetting one important thing, and that's the LFA kit will and should not be used only for covid 19. Once we get the kit eventually proved and certified it can be modified to target other tropical diseases and other viruses.
We will be the reference for highly specific and sensitivity test kits with a world renowned brand. What price can you put on that Mr Americanstar?
I wish I had 145,000 shares.
ST
Hi Tom,
The 3m test is in early stages of development, so as I said, that still leaves Awacta with a potential monopoly initially. We still don't know what sample it will use, again this could leave Awacta with a distinct competitive advantage. I agree at some point the competition will emerge, but it won't be easy if the FDA keep the bar high.
I'm not convinced by the BRH test at all, they started with the aptamer group then changed their mind. I'd be surprised to see it meet FDA approvals, but we'll see. As you've said, competition is genuinely needed to meet demand, I just feel a lot of that demand could swing towards Awacta as one of the first movers especially if it's high performing.
I wouldn't read too much into govt decision making, they're flapping at anything they can lay their hands on and if it's corrupt all the better. I'm confident that once approved and CE marked the govt will be ordering in large quantities.
Exciting times ahead, that's for sure
PL75 other tests will come as Companies wirk out the maths.
Posted on this BB was an assay with 3M. Also I have posted about the BRH Paraytec aptamer based test assay in conjunction with Sheffield University. This is a 5 min test which may be 5-6 weeks away. See BRH board for further info.
However, as has been said there will not be enough production capacity to mass test to the levels needed with one company, so many tests is good for the planet. Awacta have the best test with good manufacturing quality inbuilt in the test from the outset. This ability to scale up from one development batch to full production maintaining quality of product is important. Using Cytiva and BBI is a masterstroke by Dr AS.
The clever part of the Avacta/Cytiva is not needing a machine to process the test, but does this feature come at a increased overall cost per test compared to BRH when the machine used for ANOther test assay (3M, BRH Paraytec etc) is used for thousands or tens of thousands of tests?
Perhaps which Covid-19 test is going to sweep the board comes down to the Sensitivity vs Specificity vs cost vs time for test result and how problematic the supply chain is for whatever the test needs.
Although the UK Govt may short circuit that rationale:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/07/revealed-uk-rapid-covid-test-not-yet-approved-by-regulators
However, the lack of transparency in government decision making and the data and use of data that supports decision making is getting commented on, by the Royal Statistical Society, amongst others:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/covid-19-policy-uk-governments-lack-of-transparency-is-worrying
More or Less returns to R4 on Wednesday. Excellent sanity check on the stats rolled out by our elected representatives.
So on the one hand we’ve got Bill Gates and the Rockerfeller fella Michael Mina banging the drum very loudly at the FDA with templates for people to lobby with. They keep talking about $1 strips that can be made in the billions.
Where are they? In a recent YouTube (sorry can’t remember who posted it, but credit due), MM had a slide with a list of these cheap tests. Some needed bits of kit, others were nasal swabs. He’s pushing hard for a solution that simply currently doesn’t exist. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3seIAs-73G8 - 25 mins in)
On the other hand you have the FDA. They’ve set out their requirements. If there’s currently no suitable high frequency test that fails them, then they’re under no pressure to buckle. There’s simply no alternative at the moment. Now consider they’ve been in communication with Cytiva during development. If they know tests can meet their requirements are on the way, again, they have simply no need to lower them.
The FDA might consider that if Sona can meet them for a POC test and Awacta can for a mass screening test then they’ve set the bar perfectly. Michael Mina would then be lobbying for greater manufacturing of Awacta’s tests instead, it would certainly be top of his list of cheap tests for frequent use.
Awacta meeting their guidelines then means that the barrier to entry for other developers/manufacturers remains high. Eventually the FDA might allow lower sensitivity tests like lower nasal tests to be used, who knows. Globally they might just take whatever they can get, as India have. So whilst it might change over time, but Awacta could initially find themselves in a monopoly and total market dominance. Plus, other countries would see the effectiveness and realise it’s a false economy to use alternatives with lower sensitivity, especially when you add in the ease of use due to the saliva sample. A lot of countries also look for FDA approval.
Everything points to this being incredible, world class as Sir Al has said, we’re hopefully on the home straight now.