Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
I Found the source.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation/outcome/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation-government-response
It looks like it could be a long new list for the foreseeable future as it seems that even tests that are pending validation will be allowed to continue to be sold.
15th October 21
Dr Jenny Harries, Chief Executive of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), said: “Testing, along with vaccines, remains one of our first lines of defence against COVID-19. Getting a test as early as possible on arrival and isolation when necessary, can help control the spread of the virus and protect one another.”
The government will extend regulations and publish protocol, to allow some tests supplied to the private testing market that are pending validation to remain on the market in the short term. This is to address any potential shortage of supply, while work continues at pace to ensure only high-performing tests are ultimately approved to remain on the UK market. The government will continue to publish a list of private testing providers, who meet the minimum standards for the public to choose from, with PCR test options available as well.
https://www.internationalairportreview.com/news/165473/uk-introduce-lateral-flow-tests-for-vaccinated-international-arrivals/
"As outlined above, we have taken the decision to proceed to legislate to implement a validation process which includes only a desktop review stage at this time. At a later stage, it is the government’s intention to implement mandatory laboratory validation as outlined in the proposals in the consultation. To do so, it will be necessary to undergo a further public consultation to ensure industry and the wider public have the opportunity to input feedback. We believe desktop review will provide us with adequate assurances in the short term to deliver upon our aims to address the immediate market failure, while we prepare to implement laboratory validation in due course."
i.e. at this stage, not porton down
***Luke ****
Like thanks for a polite response. Although I should have expected the usual childish abuse.
This is supposed to be a BB to discuss Avacta including questioning what is going on.
I apologise for using “disastrous “.
Agree with you Luke re LFT being established technology. It’s also encouraging at 9.2 to note that the Spanish validation by their accredited body sounds like the route for an easy home run.
“ We recognise that some tests have already passed rigorous validation such as those approved for UK public procurement. The government does not want to create any unnecessary barriers to entry to the COVID-19 testing market, nor does it want to require onerous or repetitive work for validation. As such, we will ensure the validation process can use existing evidence where our scientists are satisfied it is of sufficiently high quality to avoid any duplication and we are exploring implementing a lighter touch expedited verification process to sit as an alternative to the future laboratory validation.“
LFT's are a mature existing technology. Presumably Toukan is referring to the affirmer platform being unique. The validation procedure that will follow hasn't been determined as far as I can see but I doubt it includes frozen pig samples so it should make it a level playing field. CE marking is self certification but Avacta's is based upon independent clinical validation so I don't think we have anything to worry about and everything to gain. I'm not sure our competitors will be pleased to read that, not least Innova after the FDA debacle.
On a separate note, I particularly liked this extract "The government anticipates that private sector provided testing will form a crucial part of day-to-day testing as we move into the long-term management of COVID-19 and reopen the economy. We therefore expect that this will require considerable expansion of domestic production and potentially an increase in imports to ensure there is sufficient supply to meet demand." HUA and we can attack an underserved market. AS is playing the long game for the long term benefit of the business. Frustrating at times but we'll thank him in the long run.
Thanks for sharing Icecool
Tut,
Do you work the afternoon shifts at Fords.
Just thought you were one of the 2 to 10 car men. :)
Tut got two upticks for that, so we know who's creation he is :)
An LFT is mature technology. Eye roll.
Yeah I get that gje , sorry I phrased it totally wrong it was disastrous I found odd
That is an excerpt from icecool's link, although I have no idea what tut is on about. Nothing disastrous in that paragraph as far as I can see.
King Tut
Link to your disastrous post ?
This is disastrous:
“The government has been clear that the proposal does not prevent the future development of new or emerging technologies. We want to encourage the private sector to bring a number of testing products and services to market to meet the differing needs of businesses and individuals. We are keen to encourage innovation and market growth while ensuring tests meet minimum performance standards on which consumers can depend. That is why we have decided to limit the scope of technologies within scope of the proposed regulation to mature existing technologies that we have an established validation process for. If new products became well established, we will revisit the policy and consider whether they should be considered in scope.“
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation/outcome/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation-government-response
This is interesting reading especially the section on validation saying desktop review only and section on fees regarding tests that have been approved via NHS framework!! IMO every company that’s paid the fees and submitted desktop review, will be included on the list published Friday!