Member Info for 13thmonkey

Private care homes should be buying their own PPE, they get paid enough for it.

watch the interview on youtube, it's difficult to say if that's what they've done, or that they know how to do it in theory, and maybe practise with similar, but have yet to do it. On the video he prefaced a lot of his conversation with this is what they were 'planning' to do.

Spbhoy, that does however ensure that the illusion of control is maintained as the council or whomever will see the results first.

Planning to make something that will be used, it's what he said (paraphrased) not that they have something that will be used. Very different. Still exciting and interesting just further away.

People create noise to fill the quiet during the waiting game, but wait we must.

dryland, avacta have provided the test that will provide extra information whether anyone else (a pubic health body, epidemiologists etc. ) can make use of it is a different story. I'm completely unconcerned by the difference between 'may' and 'will' someone being able to use that information is beyond avacta's scope, it is another differentiator though.

I know, done it now, here's to more announcements of progress, the progress itself is almost a given.

PL75, from memory the icelandic tests showed that many who were positive were asymptomatic, so they would never have the trigger to test, so you can't just test when symptoms are present if you want to manage spread. But if that is the case then they may have generated immunity and hence won't carry it again.

208m shares so just under £5.

GLR1990 I'm coming to a similar conclusion that the local markets are huge, and even with my 8k share holding I find that the implications are not something I can easily process, it's quite strange, it's just a number.

I'm not going to do the sums on those predictions as frankly they are flipping scary numbers.

I think that's low. Let's suggest we are talking about 3bn people of interest, the remainder being in sparsely populated lower density areas. At $1.3 revenue per test that equates to 1 test per person per year. The cost of the test is very low for a yearly test, more in line with a target price of a daily test. So it's either 350x more than that, or you consider a $10 test that you do multiple times a year, when traveling etc. So let's average that out at 12 times a year, which is $120 per person per year which is 90ish times the 3.9bn value. I can't see how it can only be $3.9bn in the short term unless immunity is expected to be a big player, but if immunity is a big part of the valuation equation then come 2027 it'll be very low as everyone will be immune or dead.

I'm thinking there should be a process whereby the rules can be relaxed, but otherwise they are the same as now, so in extreme circumstances there is an easier path, having a simpler approval method would not have prevented this, but would allow treatments with a higher risk to hit the general populus, typically the most vulnerable and desperate. I'm actually all for assisted dying, but not through drug side effects.

This coronavirus, or a coronavirus? They aren't uncommon, and because of that they've been used as test beds.

I will get onto that, actually looking forward to it.

First time I've ever stated an opinion on anything, listened to the first 22 mins of the presentation, amazing possibilities. Very happy here to let it sit.

Jim, and is one of the fund traders you're likely to see, I reckon it'll change when the sun is past the yard arm on friday. The 'facts' that he had can't have changed as you can't change the past.

Cost to produce, would not include the cost to date to develop.

On how many hours it takes turvart to swing to the other side?

Because Han**** made a stupid promise and wouldn't back down? He was goaded often enough by 'journalists' to guarantee that he would hit 1000 per day that he couldn't give up.