Member Info for BIGBangs

Can’t argue with the facts Regulator - as you say the court ruled that another supplier should have been given the opportunity to bid which would have proved that HMG received value for money or that bias was not involved although in my view neither issue was actually suggested or determined against the Government. I agree that this will provide ammunition for other court cases, many may just prove correct procedures were not followed not that any wrongdoing was intended or carried out but with cash flow at pandemic levels I would think it almost inconceivable that some wrong doing will not be proved at some point by someone involved in all of the awards. We can sit safe in our vaccinated havens and throw stones at those that were under fire.

Thanks Regulator and very interesting if long read. I certainly understand a lot more about it than I did before. I do not doubt as explained in detail within the judgement is correct - the initial award is not in doubt, the fact that the contracted party were ready and able to carry out the work is not in doubt nor is there any question that HMG did not receive value for money but the correct procedure was not carried out to prove there was no bias although the court agrees that there was none. Nobody should resign no damages should be paid and none were asked for but within the rules laid down they should at some point have sought another bidder. Certainly will not affect my vote. Other than proving themselves correct I find no value in bringing this matter to the courts nor was the time and costs of the review well spent. I fear there will be much worse examples of cronyism to come into the light before this is all over. ATB

Hard to argue with the judgement - no one can even be bothered to suggest that the services were required and that the contract was awarded to a company that was well qualified to provide the service but because the correct procedure was not followed during a time of emergency and the correct paperwork was not filed, this is a disgrace - can someone please move the deck chairs.

JAdam, you are right I am down and could have sold at a not inconsiderable profit and bought back in - perhaps I should have but here I am and here I will remain until the news changes. Sentiment is still low caused by delay and yes probably the flurry of positive tweets buoyed us up and may have encouraged others like me to invest further but hindsight is always 20:20 - I believe this will come good and I have the luxury of being able to wait it out and of course I will.

Although I take your question with a pinch of salt and do not trust your motives I would say that we have invested in the sum of the parts being greater than the SP. We know that there are a considerable number of positives facts which we believe will one day come together to make our journey here worthwhile. I feel battered and bruised but I remain long and have no intention of selling until everything comes together. ATB

I can’t say I am in any way impressed with the way Bighero choices to post, I am unlikely to go for a pint with such a character but we investors should at least be pleased that he has called the bottom and decided that for a time at least he is with us and believes the price will rise - for now I’ll take that as a positive.

My constituency MP is chairman of S&T Committee and I have asked him to press MH on when we will be using the part government funded and superior ODX LFT’s. I went into a lot more detail, he is extremely pro British production ahas been very receptive in the past.ATB

Thanks rocquet.

And finally, (I obviously feel the need to defend my position), I have quite a few Dr friends and without exception they all express the same reservations, basically limited value 1:1m chance of severe COVID reaction compared to the already known 1:250k bad reaction to vaccine.

I should add she almost certainly has antibodies as she had COVID, giving her a sore throat and no taste in food but she was absolutely fine within herself after a nights sleep - I was in bed for a week!

I do have a child who has been fully vaccinated to this point, I am reticent about this vaccine as I do not believe it benefits the child but is given to protect the vulnerable who are already safe and vaccinated. I have had the vaccine myself and am in no way an anti vaccxer (trouble with that spelling) I just believe there are more necessary 3rd world needs for our stock where health care workers and the vulnerable would benefit directly and I would prefer to evaluate the long term effects before encouraging my own child to take it. That said the decision will be hers and I suspect that if it becomes a requirement to travel abroad my concerns will be brushed aside.

I really think there is still hope for a widespread antibody campaign - if we consider vaccinating children, which I am against, then we should surely give them an antibody test first,if they have antibodies then no need for vaccine. Then there are those that do not want to be vaccinated, perhaps they could take an antibody test which could then allow them to travel/interact without concern, many in the care and NHS would benefit from this over forced vaccination. And of course with many vaccine recipients having had the vaccine 6 months to a year ago we will want antibody tests to determine when a booster dose is required especially if we start exporting doses to more desperate countries.

I believe an order was actually signed in February (ref. CK) what we have not been told it to begin production with an approved test.

Ok computer, I have conceded it is possible but either situation is extremely unlikely and as we have not even speculated on the fact the charge if levied would certainly be de minimis and therefore irrelevant. With so many larger points to consider I really feel that arguing about such an unknown and unlikely cost is pointless.

Thanks computer, I am aware of the relevant section and I had perhaps misunderstood exactly what you meant but if the ultimate recipient of the product is DHSC be that following an order from DHSC themselves or via Innova as you suggest (although I cannot let this pass without saying I think this is massively unlikely) then why would DHSC apply additional costs? Putting into a contract the facility to do something is not the same thing as doing it in practice.

Apologies. computer but I do not understand your comment, would you explain it as if you were talking to an a 5year old. Thanks

Computer I am very glad that we can agree that ODX full 100m capacity would be a drop in the Ocean for DHSC needs. There is no suggestion that DHSC will make a charge, other than the £1 they charge us to rent the machines, for any tests we make for the govt contract. It has been suggested they might make a charge if their orders did not fully utilise the machines they have proved allowing us to produce more of our own tests once our other capacity was taken up but as we have just agreed this is very unlikely. ATB

I for one don’t know the specifics about fitting out a facility to produce scientific equipment or if willing to throw enough money at it how quickly you could get the necessary equipment manufactured and delivered but I am extremely confident that it will take quite some time to get the facility accredited and even longer to attract the necessary skilled staff to give up their presumably very secure jobs and relocate to Wales.

I am afraid to say that I agree that the flurry of tweets, hyped up the market and were perhaps Iill advised if the company did not know how long final decision would take or what the reasons for the delay were. I believe they have learnt from their mistakes and are now much more careful - of course we can also criticise them for that. I am invested, I believe in the company and what we can achieve, I believe that we will sell all that we can produce, I hope that the necessary news will land soon as the continued delay is frustrating for all.

I would struggle to believe it would be possible for Innova to build or fit out a facility with the necessary equipment and specialist staffing, let alone authorisation to produce tests at volume, in Wales, by this summer or next.