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.
Re earlier discussion about the POC BD-Veritor- covid test machine - and whether it is better than PCR. Wbernard already posed the question that if it was better then why are negative results recommended to be retested by molecular?Some more information from a 17 page pdf (if you Google it you can click directly into the pdf - but that doesn't allow me to copy a link here. It's not designed for use on asymptomatic patients and the 84/100% results achieved seem to have been under ideal conditions rather than real world.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROCEDURE
• Clinical performance was evaluated with frozen samples, and test performance may be different with fresh samples.
• Users should test specimens as quickly as possible after specimen collection.
• Positive test results do not rule out co-infections with other pathogens.
• Results from the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 test should be correlated with the clinical
history, epidemiological data, and other data available to the clinician evaluating thepatient.
• A false-negative test result may occur if the level of viral antigen in a sample is below the detection limit of the test
or if the sample was collected or transported improperly; therefore, a negative test result does not eliminate the
possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
• The amount of antigen in a sample may decrease as the duration of illness increases. Specimens collected after
day 5 of illness are more likely to be negative compared to a RT-PCR assay.
• Failure to follow the test procedure may adversely affect test performance and/or invalidate the testresult.
• The contents of this kit are to be used for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens from nasal swab
The
BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is designed to detect the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2
nucleocapsid proteins in respiratory samples from patients with signs and symptoms of infection who are suspected of
COVID-19
SPECIMEN COLLECTION AND HANDLING
Specimen Collection and Preparation
Acceptable specimens for testing with this kit include nasal swab specimens obtained by the dual nares collection method. It
is essential that correct specimen collection and preparation methods be followed. Specimens obtained early during symptom
onset will contain the highest viral titers; specimens obtained after five days of symptoms are more likely to produce negative
results when compared to an RT-PCR assay. Inadequate specimen collection, improper specimen handling
and/or transport may yield a falsely negative result; therefore, training in specimen collection is highly recommended due to
the importance of specimen quality for generating accurate test results.
Negative Test – Negative results are presumptive. Negative test results do not preclude infection and should not be used as
the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions, including infection control decisions, particular
Yeah I'm working as well and will have a look later.
One for Wbernard to consider I think as he has shown himself to be more than capable to respond to Doc even I've had a go and I've no scientific background!
Just my initial thoughts for others to develop and consider.
I detect bias from Doc. Now if he is a scientist/ doc with an interest in pandemic medicine as he states he has he would be undertaking more detailed objective research.
1. For example it doesn't look like he has been to that company's website to see full details, scientists would not make a determination based on another posters assertions regarding sensitivity and specificity in a message.
2. Doc is again contradicting himself it seems as Nova was a market leader a couple of days ago with the best test and now it's not because a rapid test (rapid tests are known to have less sensitivity and/or specificity) is better but as I say he has as a scientist based this on one posters figures - Doc you said you were with WHO is that how they do things over there? These alleged 75% for PCR have been in the media for weeks yet doc has been asserting Nova is market leader best etc.
3. I think what doc is referring to is what has been in the media about how samples are taken - but that is a training issue if doc looks at Nova's website they do repeatedly put up their 100% figures. There has been nothing at all pointing the finger at Nova as far as I can see - Doc has pointed the finger at Nova without scientific basis/facts yet he claims to be from that community that's not how they do things.
4. The 75% media assertion is about PCR tests well then that would catch Ygen as well (again I've nothing against Ygen and in fact think it's a great company). Yet doc in his impartial scientific analysis said their test was better again it seems without delving deep into what their tech is - doc seemed to think they were better because of their tech example the pregnancy test but I pointed out that was Illumina patent.
5. Doc is not looking at like for like - "declared" for the rapid test company but real life for NCYT (again I say that the media have not pointed the finger at Nova) to arrive at an alleged 75%. Like for like based on declared would be 100% for Nova v 84% for the other company. As a scientist he should know that and should be impartial.
It seems the stats are being represented in a way to suit his short.
Now I planned to just put some quick thoughts down and that took longer than I intended if any errors in my reasoning I'm sure others will correct.
Can someone pse tell me where seadoc is getting his 75% from I can't see it!!! I'm working so won't respond until this evening. Tks in advance. P.s I'm aware of his position.
hope they better at updating with this information ,than they been with the airport updates ,
Novacyt has already launched three new innovative products, COVID-HT, Exsig™ Direct and Exsig™ Mag, to support laboratories testing for COVID-19. These products are expected to drive incremental revenue and the Company received initial orders in June 2020 following their launch. Novacyt expects to provide an update on its investment in R&D to support continued growth, including a number of new products and innovations to be launched in the near future.
Development of the Company's COVID-19 test established Novacyt as a pioneer and a leader in COVID-19 diagnostics. Novacyt remains committed to building on this world-class innovative position for COVID-19 testing, and more broadly for respiratory disease testing, and is investing to address unmet needs in the market. Novacyt has already launched three new innovative products, COVID-HT, Exsig™ Direct and Exsig™ Mag, to support laboratories testing for COVID-19. These products are expected to drive incremental revenue and the Company received initial orders in June 2020 following their launch. Novacyt expects to provide an update on its investment in R&D to support continued growth, including a number of new products and innovations to be launched in the near future.
good research by gggg21 and other investors who finding this information out before ncyt release a rns
also why no information on who this is at this time
In the US, the Company has signed a major distribution agreement for its COVID-19 test with a new global strategic partner
Genesig states 98% sensitivity? Have you got any AVCT numbers, didn't know there were any?
If it is better than PCR why would they say check by molecular test?
Seadoc I'm not sure I understand why that better?
Is the test 15 minute test high throughput? Looks like it only handles one sample at a time with a 15 minute gap in between will that really be any quicker? The blurb suggests it's not designed for busy sites. The benefit would have been saliva but it only shows a nasal swab.
"This will be a game-changer for frontline health care workers and their patients to be able to access a quick diagnostic test for COVID-19, offering results in real-time at convenient locations like retail pharmacies, urgent care centers and doctors' offices," said Dave Hickey, president of Integrated Diagnostic Solutions for BD. "Such tests will also help communities be more informed and better prepared to help prevent new spikes and additional waves of COVID-19 by enabling public health workers to quickly identify infectious individuals and trace their contacts."
If I was taking a flight I would pick the airline that had the best test, UV cleaning of aircraft, adequate spacing etc.
I think this is the problem with the lateral flow or other rapid tests. What is their market?
Healthcare workers and airlines you are in contact with a lot of people, vulnerable people and confined spaces. You have to be sure, as possible, that you, and others, aren't infected. PCR takes longer but hospital staff have handovers and paperwork, airports have check ins. These can be adequate time for testing before you come in contact with others.
Lateral flow really only has the home market but the initial suggested costs at £30 or so seem too high for most people. £120 to test a four person family, can't see many paying that and especially not the demographics, of cramped poorer households, where coronavirus seems to be most prevalent in the UK. How often do you then re test?
Employers could use a rapid antigen test but might face issues of increased cost of infections of an inferior test and higher unit test costs. They could also face employee litigation.
If a rapid test can be better than PCR then that is a different matter, but there is no evidence of that.
That bd link suggests that all negative patients should be tested by molecular assay, for patient management. Intentionally vague language, perhaps? Doesn't stipulate medical management, management could mean quarantine. Regardless, acknowledges that the test is inferior.
If the negatives need to be tested again, does that mean everyone has to wait the 1 - 2 hours for PCR anyway?
84% sensitivity 100% specifity
Clia waived
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/ivd-regulatory-assistance/clia-waiver-application
15 minutes will be a different technology. Lateral flow? Lover sensitivity/specificity
Long haul flights are a 2 hour check in and not unreasonable to extend internal flight check in to that time. Plenty of time for a PCR.
I would rather wait a bit longer at check in if it meant the test of my fellow passengers was more reliable.
So if Becton dickinson have a 15 minute portable antigen test that there rolling out in the US, why would airports use our 60-90 minute test. Our test wouldn't be practical for testing at the airport before flying. Am I missing something?
yes and point of cares... which is a huge market
Yes seadoc that's helped my understanding, thanks for replying. Is the whole point of a move to saliva testing for airports because you get results instantaneously? And the mobile element also brings down the turnaround time?
I am just trying to understand what the airport testing means in financial terms... obviously if we were the one sole provider of tests to these airlines then that's mega lucrative???
I'm getting a little confused by the different hypotheses banded about on here - saliva testing, mobile testing, airport testing. Can someone neatly break it down?
Cheers Balanced.. I was confusing with FlyBlue
It's a Pakistani airline
https://www.airblue.com/corp/about
Air Blue??
Doesn't that include the likes of KLM and Air France?
Looks like you're still upset with me because of all the Buffet quotes?
Fyi...I got interrupted and returned to typing and there was an additional post in the meantime posting the 3 test suppliers. A little courtesy for fellow investors wouldn't go amiss.
We know, for the third time now, keep up, posted first time 20 minutes ago....
I've contacted Chughtai Labs and they have confirmed also what gggg21 has said but additionally:
They are exclusive diagnostic lab (trusted by the airlines) for the following airlines using Covid-19 PCR Qualitative test for Emirates, Fly Dubai, Etihad, Air Arabia and Air Blue passengers.
The testing has now been confirmed.
Tests used are PCR ( Polymerase Chain Reaction ) and the kits are from
1- Primer Design ( UK )
2- Anatolia Genetech ( Turkey )
3- Qiagen ( USA , Netherlands )