Member Info for baldingquickly

That’s the one. Here is the actual agreement (thanks MB for posting it in November): https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kE0b/4GX1_UMogDlN5UZ6w.bYa9R.LIbF5wHYLUljGrLS6gk

As you can read we would expect it to hit ABDX balance sheet, not ODX. And anywhere up to 10-15m tests COULD have been produced.

For the record I personally believe TWatcher will be proven correct that ODX have not been utilising max capacity, but if cash movement is their only proof of that, then there is simply no proof.

TWatcher still ignoring the Letter of Credit which allows the UK RTC members to obtain raw materials and would not necessarily impact upon Omega’s cash position. I will not filter them as someone needs to keep them in check.
Ps. Not to be read as I believe they are producing, just pointing out TWatcher’s otherwise sound logic starts from the false assumption that it has to be on Balance Sheet.

There was a letter of credit granted to the UK RTC for the purchase of raw materials for AB LFTs which would cover it TWatcher. I’m inclined to agree that it is unlikely they are doing so, but just as those who say they are making them don’t actually have that knowledge, neither do you to the contrary TWatcher so don’t pretend otherwise. It’s just your opinion.

?? = Laughing emoji

And I’m 31! None of us above 60 ??

WTF has happened today!? Blue!?

I had Covid April last year and just had my first shot (AZ) on Monday. I had a mild headache for most of yesterday, but possible it was unrelated to the vaccine (unlikely though IMO as I don’t often get them). I hasten to add it wasn’t that bad, I didn’t bother with pills and wouldn’t have bothered mentioning it to anyone except you asked. I strongly encourage everyone to get the vaccine.

Also very curious what ‘next Gen’ entails Porky. I doubt an LFT will give that detail, but perhaps a digital Yes/No rather than reading a line which I personally think is the hitch for the RTC in their pursuit of MHRA approval.
On that, I think it’s a little disingenuous to say the AB LFT will come into its own as the rest of the market are on antigen when the RTC (ABDX/ODX) have had an AB test for 6+ months and continue to produce/market/sell it and has >99% accuracy.
I am pleased for you to see the value in LFTs now though, even if it was only because NCYT are getting into the market ;) All LFTs are useless unless they are NCYT LFTs.
GLA. Hopefully a blue day.

For Bovine Viral Diarrhoea LOLOLOL

Let’s check the info before posting from now on?

TWatcher, I am sure I recall there was a framework for drawing down funds against a HMG facility for AB test materials. £15m rings a bell. Anyone recall?

Also, could have just been bought on credit terms (or partly) with invoices not yet due for payment. There are explanations that mean we could be doing it and not seeing it yet, or IMO more likely we actually aren’t utilising full capacity (yet).

Flawed baselines, one particular brand of LFT, nothing but a straw man fallacy to connect this to ODX is any way.

Jog on or provide something useful.

Full disclosure I am much more heavily into ODX than NCYT, but LFT is a public health tool, PCR is not, so I don’t wonder why they are supportive. We cannot PCR test our way out of (or even manage) this pandemic. Any epidemiologist will tell you it is about breaking as many chains of transmission as possible, and using that one study with flawed baselines and one brand of test is nothing more than a straw-man fallacy.

Re-reading I know it will come across defensive and I don’t want it to be political or PCR vs. LFT, just there is good reason the government has handed out big contracts to BOTH PCR and LFT providers. They are both needed for different reasons.

What are we wondering sorry?

Cheers JRDC. You may well be proven right in time on booster schedule, I just think we are at least 11 months off knowing whether annual is the way to go or not and didn't like the way your statement was framed "will likely have annual" with no support provided give this is a novel disease. To be fair I cannot think of or find any disease that requires boosters more frequently than annually (I'd be interested to know if anyone else knows of one), and immunity following infection of SARS-CoV was ~2 years on average as well which supports the suggested timeframe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/).

On question of reinfection, another article (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2203) only identified several hundred reports of reinfection cases globally so far, and of these only a handful were considered genuine reinfections. So I do think there is scope for change in attitude to risk following infection. My other half who also caught COVID works in a bank branch, and after her recovery volunteered to work front of house as the risk of reinfection is microscopically low and protected colleagues. This sort of approach to utilising people with a very high chance of immunity seems logical and worthwhile in my opinion, and the applications can be taken further.

Of course this is just my take and I fully support anyone that wants to take the vaccine despite prior infection and forget about at home AB testing. I personally would just rather test beforehand and make my decision with full information.

I think the two main use cases of an LFT AB test are:

1. For boosters as Regulator says, but specifically those most vulnerable (say over 60s and CEV), a LFT every 8-12 weeks and booster if/when negative.

2. For home use. I tested positive for COVID back in April and would much prefer to have a test before the vaccine and avoid it if I could do so responsibly, and without any burden on the NHS. I am pro-vaccinations btw, just if there is no need to take something that may have long term consequences I’d rather not.

I want to wait and see, but I do think the spacing of shots beyond manufacturers instructions is potentially a reason for more intense testing of AB response also, and there is potentially an argument for immunity passports, though I don’t see why governments wouldn’t just make it a vaccination passport as is easier to manage and harder to cheat.

That is still a lot of required tests even just within the UK, then consider globally with sales at better margins, I am convinced this will hit new ATHs in the near term. Antigen tests then antibody tests running at full capacity for years. Market will cotton on eventually.

AIMO

Why is it likely yearly boosters? I don’t need a peer reviewed journal article, just after how you came to the conclusion on the timing of a year please.

It will be a positive for Omega if it comes to pass. CK would not commit a material level of resources/manufacturing capacity to a test that is at lower margins than the already good ones being produced unless this was going to be the ONLY test used (which is extremely unlikely, and some would say impossible). If it were to happen, IMO it would likely be a small commitment initially to spread the bets across which test ends up with combination of most demand and margin.

This is a really good question TWatcher. Given the RTC test was developed looking for a specific IgG to spike protein, and the spike protein has been modified in the SA variant, it is possible that it will impact the accuracy of the test for that use case. IF this new strain does manage to prove able to overcome the vaccine effort, and if the primary use case of the test is vaccine reaction, and if it becomes the globally dominant strain, then it would leave the test in a tricky situation. Not impossible, but a lot of unknowns at the moment. Some comfort I do take from RTC point of view is that the ‘Mink’ variant had a change in the spike protein too, and while we still don’t know about vaccine effectiveness, everything I read indicated tests still worked as expected/intended at the same accuracy as previously. My thoughts are that it is more the use case that may bring the RTC undone, though if that came to pass it would mean the vaccine is not effective, and so we would be back on this merry-go-round for another year, and antigen testing would go back to the number one tool to fight COVID. Horrible for the human race, though your investment should be sound. IMO, DYOR.

Boot, all investing involves risk, but strongly disagree this is a “gamble of the highest order”. ODX is producing the most accurate LFT antibody test available, and will be close to finalising TT of an antigen LFT hugely superior to the currently used Innova tests. I think the company is undervalued (hence why I am invested) as the market hasn’t decided how long testing will be required, and if superior tests/vaccines will curb the demand for ODX produced tests. They can manufacture for anyone though, so I think most risk is mitigated, as is the fact they have a portfolio of tests to produce even if COVID disappears overnight. Vaccines face new issues everyday, so not convinced they will out a dent in global demand for 6-12 months minimum either, and even then will need to reassess timeframe. Variants, etc. may (some already saying will) make it endemic, in which case testing in some form will be here forever.

Is there risk associated? Always. Gamble of the highest order? Not even close.

Pretty sure we have been told, and the answer is we are going to be producing both (if we aren’t already). Future capacity however being committed to Antigen. ICYMI Omega confirmed in the Q&A that machinery is agnostic between tests, so can adjust between them relatively easily as demand dictates.