Member Info for baldingquickly

Wrong thread TCO? No deramping on this one. I think you’re looking for CKBoxers.

A little disappointing given the high protection of other vaccines (at least initially), but cements and probably even pushes the need for AB testing alongside the Oxford vaccine to greater heights. I really do try to look at the good of humanity before ODX, but probably couldn’t have asked for a better outcome for ODX. High enough protection at a cheap price to be the main vaccine, but low enough to need ongoing AB testing.

They do have their own AB test, but is not a lateral flow/POC one.

Yes, the RTC test looks for IgG antibodies. They are the ones that bind to the spike protein, and that is what all the vaccines thus far target, so the test is usable with any of the vaccines currently in Phase III.

Hi all, my thoughts are that ODX won’t get £33m, that subcontracted figure in the document includes assembly/packaging, presumably done by CIGA. We will likely get 25%. I think CK is limiting RTC for now as it is our lowest margin product, so cannot see him taking more than 25% unless we have excess capacity.

No, direct investing is not for you Real112 having seen you last few contributions. Put your money into an ETF if you want to invest.

Real, if anyone ‘knew’ what was going to happen on the stock market they’d be very rich and probably not on the LSE board. Most of us are here because we think it will go up, but nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. Most think it will go up based on several factors, but to give you a start:
- We will make UP TO 10,000,000 tests a month around end of Q1 next year (maybe earlier, we have to wait).
- Most of this capacity is for COVID, but our other tests are higher profit and will outlast the COVID needs.
- If we assume £1 net profit per test (which I think is conservative) we will make £10,000,000 net per month.
- Keep that up for 12 months, we should have more cash than the current market cap.
- On top of this, if it is indeed the RTC test that goes global and billions are needed, we will profit share in whatever we make from outsourced orders, straight into Omega’s bank account again.
- Then factor in that all businesses are valued on their ability to produce cash in future years which is why we use a multiplier.
- Even if we said COVID revenues will only last 12 months (NB. even if it is not the RTC or Mologic test that is used we know that the equipment is agnostic so we can manufacture almost any LFT), our Food Intolerance and AIDS tests will last for many, many years and we make more profit on those.
- Add all of that up: £120m for Covid tests, plus £15m times your multiplier for food intolerance, plus £3m times your multiplier for AIDS tests.

Based on all of that, to me it has got to be worth £200m at an absolute minimum, based on extremely conservative fundamentals, which gives a price of £1.11/share. This is where investors get excited about MHRA, FDA, etc. as the ability to sell privately is much more profitable, and therefore will greatly increase the value of the business, plus the overwhelming likelihood testing will last for many years, not just one.

This is absolutely not advice, you really need to do a lot more research, but I hope this gives you a start and I wish you the best of luck.

Agreed Twatcher. £75/test by their reckoning. Not a chance.

Is it at all possible it includes some charge backs for R&D, etc. or sponsoring the manufacturing ramp up?

“I see people wearing winter coats and hats. What a bunch of sheep! LOL! I did my own research and found that only 1,500 people die from hypothermia in the US each year. That’s only 0.0005% of the population. They live in fear of something that 99.9995% of people won’t die from. It gets better, a lot of people who died from hypothermia were wearing coats and hats, and they still died! Coats don’t work.” - R Jim Fulner

This is the logic I see in people claiming testing not being required moving forward, ODX being Mickey Mouse that rode money, lockdowns don’t work, and ODX will never make anything. WHO, government, and big business know what will be needed to move forward, and ODX is a massive part of that for the foreseeable future. If you still aren’t convinced on its COVID revenues, current SP is supported by non-COVID offering anyway. In the medium term, very little downside, and a heck of a lot of upside. Don’t read into the dribble in between.

I don’t think that is correct Reg looking at the source data... I am aware of pillars, where we fit in, etc. I am just worried about the sentiment of LFT generally, and this confirmation would go some way to justifying the discrepancy, but the stats on Liverpool Council website imply to me that both cohorts were symptom free.

“ Good news !

LF tests are ONLY being given to people in Liverpool without symptoms during this pilot operation

It is pretty clear that this means there will be far fewer positive cases in this sample than in the sample who all have symptoms and come forward for the PCR”

How’d you get this intel E_AL? Is a damn good find if true, and makes sense to me it would be done that way, but would rather a source other than LSE. :)

Only the second person I’ve filtered. You are right, obviously an agenda. I can see them trying to reply, all I see is a green box ??

Articles/studies**

This was one of the articles rebutted today. Always happy for a challenge to my thinking PL, but nothing new here.

If you are nervous, read through again. Answer to Question 80 for example: "Production equipment for LFT manufacturing is quite generic so it is easy to use this equipment for both antibody and antigen test manufacture."

They can make LFTs for whoever needs them made, antigen or antibody, using the equipment they have, at the sites they have. I am as frustrated as anyone at the mismanagement of PR, but I keep returning to the fact that being in Omega is in itself some level of diversification with their 6 tests (plus any others that may come up), and they will sell everything they make.

If I have to explain then my post was obviously lost on you PotatoInvestor, but I'll do it anyway. The article linked had specificity in the top bullet points and sensitivity in the body three quarters of the way down, hence my tongue in cheek comment that my test is 100% specificity, just don't read on to realise that it is 0% sensitivity.

Am I the only one that shakes my head when I read the government/media pushing specificity of 99% as a good thing and burying sensitivity deep in an article? If it is against a 99% sensitivity, great, but against 50%? Lower? If anyone is interested I have designed a VERY cheap test myself with 100% specificity just this evening. Spit on a piece of paper (any will do), and if the paper is wet you are negative. 100% specificity.

Today’s announcement of the ‘six’ is not CE. CE is self certified. The ‘six’ was a line in a parliamentary meeting yesterday that they have six LFTs that meet the requirements of cost, accuracy, and speed of result that can be used for mass testing. Further tests will be added as they continue validation, they just have six at the moment.

And SD Biosensor has failed the last few validations with WHO and other countries. UK may stick with them for the sake of needing volume now, but will likely drop them when contracts roll off and others can fill the void. Last article I read (out of Philippines) had their sensitivity at ~70% initially, and at ~50% last validation attempt. I assume difference is PCR testing has improved and shown they were even worse than first thought.

Just to clarify for people that don’t get it, if it says ‘swab’ in the name, it isn’t a true home test. It still needs to go to a lab for analysis.