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.
sorry, well past ....grrrr
My wife gran tested positive for CV19 after a hospital visit mid last year, she's 93 and showed no symptoms at all. After quarantine she continued to test positive via PCR for over 1 month, which mean her carers could not visit her at home, family had to do the job. Basically she was completely asymptomatic, was well passed the infectious period but because PCR amplifies so much, she was testing positive for weeks after the original test. PCR is the wrong method of CV testing going forward.
I agree with Poised. It is a very good question; whether a false positive could be repeatedly be generated by the same person even when they weren't infected. In any event with two positive results I wouldn't want them mixing in the community. From a public health perspective the incidence of false negatives is surely more concerning for people arriving in the country. A second test after 5 days carried out by a health professional should be mandatory since they could have become infected on the plane or in the airport.
Also, I agree with jdt1990 that a negative PCR test 72 hours before flying is not adequate. Michael Mina's graphs show infectivity within 48 hours of infection.
If we are going to allow increased plane travel it will also be important from the track and trace point of view that airports do not allow mixing of passengers from different inbound flights which will be a serious management issue to resolve and does not seem to have been attempted as yet.
Looking good for Avacta though. Very positive vibes.
Spinnaker
The practicalities of PCR never really made sense to me full stop because of turnaround times.
"You need a negative PCR test within 72 hours of your flight" then you can just hop on your plane care free.
I have absolutely no idea what anyone on that plane has been doing in the 72 hours post their test. They could literally have spent 2 days licking Covid laced petri dishes, be asymptomatic and they can still board the plane.
Surely a test done on the spot is the ONLY way to effectively determine if someone has the virus.
Of course, PCR for detecting variants from high risk countries makes sense, but green zone countries....no
the Transport secretarys comments 0n the 9th April gave it away.....
"So that is something I am going to be working with the travel industry and private testing providers on to drive that cost down and try and make this as cheap and convenient as possible."
You aint never going to make PCR testing convenient in relation to travel, LFT with a certification application = fast pass.
Absolutely - there is a very clear push from some of the science community around the "detecting every case counts" idea and that PCR being so sensitive is the way the world should go. Aside form the fact nothing is ever 100% accurate, exactly what you say, with AVCTs S&S figures performing so well at the generally agreed Ct values for infectiousness, not only can they pick up genuinely positive cases in sufficient levels to suppress the virus but accurate enough to avoid false positives where people are actually post infectious. That then allows economies to reopen and peoples livelihoods not crushed by oversensitive PCR tests deeming people positive for isolation on viral loads too low to be infectious.
This test is a huge weapon against Covid whilst avoiding the economic catastrophe lockdown is causing at a cost of £500m a day.
Also, jdt, as an aside but on the LFT v PCR debate in this context. Regarding sensitivity rather than specificity/false negatives, an important factor is the 'infectiousness' scale that AS has banged on the drum of for so long. PCR, if positive, will say so even if it picks it up on one of the last cycles; where you have the tiniest of viral load and aren't near an infectious state.
AVCT's LFT is 100% at these levels and that is so important it can't be said enough, even if that proves to be 99% or 99.99% in larger scales - it's a monumental step forward in comparison to other LFT's we have vision of. I would feel confident on a flight knowing everyone had taken a solitary LFT with this s/s, let alone 2.
Sisu thank the lord there's still a few left on this bb that get it and share useful insights!
This is exactly what Michael Mina has been saying to quash the likes of Deeks and the anti LFT brigade. Nothing will ever be 100% S&S in a real world setting at scale....fact. So having tests that are rapid and cheap (as well as very very accurate of course) means the concept of confirmatory testing via LFT's is very much doable. PCR will then only be requires to screen for variants.
As you say, likelihood of two false readings in a row reduced exponentially with an additional test.
Based on 99% exactly, the chances of 2 consecutive false positives (out of only 2) is 1 in 10,000. 1% of 1% essentially. With the cost 7fold cheaper, based on £5 cost price, than the CHEAPEST PCR (not to mention so much quicker) and 40fold cheaper than the higher end cost of PCR - it's a huge huge win in favour of LFT's. Very sensitive and specific ones at that.
AVCT specificity actually was 99.019607843137% if we're being meticulous so will affect less than 1 in 10,000. :-)
Poised - that is indeed a very good question. I don't think anybody knows yet, but if it is the test's problem, or a fluke then a double puts you at 1 in 10,000 for a false positive. Lets hope.
‘ Professional use only’ is somewhat meaningless as the Gov’t advice seems to be seek the guidance from a Health care professional eg .pharmacist before us using it. It’s really just a way of protecting Mfrs from legal redress. It certainly won’t impact on sales here.
What interests me is the repeatability of a positive LFT test result. The Avacta test is obviously sensitive enough to be very useful in say, an airport and will correctly hoover up most rogue infected passengers. But even at 99% specificity it will generate far too many false positives - 4 or 5 per jumbo jetload. But if the test is then immediately repeated, what are the chances of a second false positive? Is it 1% or 100%? Is it a problem with the passenger or a problem with the test that causes the false positive? If the chances of a repeat false positive are 1% then we have a very simple and workable solution. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
I also dont think it is us but..... This "Avacta is professional use only" drives me nuts. The Innova test is professional use only but the government are still letting people do them at home. I have a $hitload in the cupboard.
This is a future policy shift as per below statement.
However, Mr Shapps confirmed that PCR tests would be required for the foreseeable future. “For the time being, the PCR test gets us closer to the truth about somebody's Coronavirus and for the time being that's the one that's going to be required.”
Gla
Plenty of potential in this area for obvious reasons. But linking each and every LFT comment to timing of Avacta's CV results is not something we should place our bets on.
Direct quote from your article:
“[take] the lateral flow tests, potentially, that they already have access to from home.”
Clearly not us as our test is for professional use only. Whatever he is referring to is not our test - and that's fine
Let's stay critical
GLA
LFT as effective as PCR. Wonder which test they are referring to ;}
The session heard from testing expert George Batchelor, director of Edge Health, who said Covid has “turned from a societal threat to a risk that can be managed and mitigated” and noted “huge advances in testing” alongside “hugely successful vaccination campaigns” in the UK and US.
Batchelor said PCR tests are still considered the “gold standard” of testing for Covid, but said lateral flow antigen testing has “moved on in the last year”, and is now “as effective as PCR”.
https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/transport-secretary-still-looking-at-use-of-lateral-flow-tests-for-travel
The timing of this change in policy cannot be a coincidence, it is surely linked to the CV results AVCT released yesterday. Based on publicly known results, it is only the AVCT LFT that is capable of delivering the accuracy required to facilitate LFT testing for air travel.
Wonder if a 100% sensitive test has given more confidence to say that....
The Transport Secretary has hinted that free NHS tests could be used to facilitate international travel in the future, ending the need for holidaymakers to purchase notoriously expensive PCR tests.
Speaking at an industry webinar yesterday evening, Grant Shapps said that travellers may be able to “[take] the lateral flow tests, potentially, that they already have access to from home.”
The statement appears to suggest that holidaymakers could be permitted to use free NHS tests to obtain ‘fit to fly’ certificates, instead of PCR devices which currently cost an average of £128 per test. The twice-weekly NHS lateral flow tests are currently offered to everyone in England as part of the Government’s plans to ease lockdown, but the results are not presently accepted for international travel.
More evidence to suggest need a robust sovereign test!
Gla