The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
I think Doze makes a good point Vegas. Entangled confirmatory lab test is surely to avoid false positives but it doesn't look like we are going to get many (if any) of these with AffiDX. On the other hand you might actually want to give confirmed cases a BAMS test where possible because it would provide an indicator of how to proceed therapeutically with the person. In the ideal world you would then be able to apply a therapy before any case got serious - such as the nasal spray based therapy Tils has been trialling in Brazil and seems to be pretty efficacious without entailing much harm. Or maybe, in due course, an affimer based therapy.
You can research Avacta all you like now
The truth is it’s share price will be between £3 and £20 in the next 12/18 months
It’s as simple as that
If they pull off 60% of what they say that’s £6/£7 a share
Happy days I reckon
Never mind getting a pcr test to validate your + LFD result, just use up another Avacta LFD.
If Mologic promote affimer like mad... Is that a bad thing?
I am not actually a fan of the S&N hybrid because it will implicate AVCT in nucleocapsid false positives whereas the spike affimer test has 100% specificity and is only targetting the early infectious and that is the only thing required. I think it got Mologic on board for a commercial partnership to produce the AffiDX for low income countries but the hybrid will take 50% of profit for reagent sharing away from AVCT simply for giving Mologic an affimer test which they will promote like mad.
Doze, no doubt the statistics will be analysed to determine with the Avacta LFT whether that additional PCR test is necessary!
Hopefully, the accuracy of the Avacta LFT negates this. The Avacta S&N type LFT definitely should!! Or at least that is the intention.
Don't forget Sir Al is on record (from past presentations) as stating generation of affirmers is "a few weeks" !!
Test, test, test
Thought it was interesting to see that everyone using the tests will need to report the results, online or by phone. Lot of trust there, particularly given the implications of reporting a positive result , and the fact we are largely talking about secondary school kids who will need to be honest and take it seriously. Surely an app to read the result and report directly would be a more conducive solution for teenagers, whilst at the same time offering better potential for accurate reporting.
NB Only if you test positive with a antigen LFT will you be confirmatory tested with a pcr. The regular repeat test after test is for the detection of infectious(AffiDX is the best) and is a test taken by everyone, (the infected only requiring confirmatory pcr or merely isolation until repeat LFTs show infectiousness gone-ie negative). Moonshot big numbers are AffiDX type tests.
This includes piloting the regular testing of contacts of people who tested positive for coronavirus in order to find more coronavirus cases and break the chains of transmission, as people who have had close contact with a confirmed positive case are at higher risk than normal of having the virus.
A recent study suggests that regular testing contacts of confirmed cases is an effective way to reduce transmission of COVID-19, and could potentially reduce the need for self-isolation for contacts of positive cases
Extracts taken from website:
How effective is lateral flow antigen testing?
Lateral flow tests can help to drive down the spread of COVID-19.
Lateral flow tests deliver a rapid result, in 30 minutes. They can find positive cases with high levels of virus that are easy to transmit to others, helping to intercept and reduce further infections.
Lateral flow tests used by the UK government go through a rigorous evaluation by the country’s leading scientists. This means they are accurate, reliable and successfully identify those with COVID-19 who don’t show symptoms and could spread the virus without realising.
Lateral flow tests are not being offered in isolation, but alongside a range of other measures to drive down cases and break chains of transmission. See more on this topic on the Public Health England blog.
How sensitive are the tests?
‘Sensitivity’ refers to the proportion of people with COVID-19 that have a positive test.
When a person has low levels of virus in their system, lateral flow tests are less sensitive than some of the other tests we use, such as PCR tests which we mainly use for people with symptoms.
When levels of virus are at their highest and people are most likely to pass on the disease, lateral flow tests can detect the vast majority of cases.
PCR and lateral flow have different roles to play in controlling the virus, so it isn’t helpful to directly compare them in terms of how sensitive they are:
Lateral flow is useful for finding out if a person is infectious now, and able to transmit the virus to others. The level of sensitivity is high enough to detect the vast majority of these cases. Lateral flow testing is less likely to return a positive result outside the infectious window.
PCR is useful for confirming a suspected case of coronavirus, where the person is already self-isolating and is showing symptoms. Higher sensitivity of PCR means it can identify genetic material from COVID-19 even after the active infection has passed.
The different levels of sensitivity are therefore appropriate for the ways they are used.
How lateral flow testing was trialled
The tests underwent a rigorous validation process including evaluations from Public Health England and the University of Oxford. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) provides ongoing regulatory oversight.
Trials were carried out on the tests in a wide range of environments.
Large-scale pilots have also been carried out, including the whole city pilot in Liverpool in November 2020. As a result of the pilot, 897 positive individuals who would not otherwise have known they were infected, tested positive using lateral flow tests.
Pilots and evaluations
We have an ongoing programme of piloting and evaluating other potential uses of lateral flow tests in a number of institutions and workplaces, such as Jaguar Land Rover and John Lewis Partnership.
Published today by HMG
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rapid-lateral-flow-testing-for-households-and-bubbles-of-school-pupils-and-staff