RE: very very BULLISH CARL20 Apr 2021 20:38
...the thing you're missing here is that they are different tests for different purposes. LFT's can be bought cheaply and give a very good indication - Avacta's test is a highly sensitive LFT test - it uses a piece of paper and relies on chemical reaction
You're comparing it with something that is hardware based but you need a base station to get a result. Avacta's is a simple swab and test, based on a chemical reaction
Man on the street is not going to buy themselves a base station, but they will buy a cheap test.
The idea is to get people into the habit of testing regularly and that has to be relatively cheap and quick. It is not meant to be PCR accurate. Its meant to pick up symptomatic and asymptomatic with the least possible false pos/negs.
Horses for courses. You're comparing two different types of test.
Commercially, whilst you may not like it, the AVACTA test has more appeal because of cost ,the ability to distribute easily and existing infrastructure to manufacture (BBI, Mologic, and Abingdon). People are more likely to take a simple test than having to go somewhere to queue up to have a test.
Yes I am an AVACTA investor and have been from 16p. The Braveheart test is immensly accurate and does have a lot of promise. However its about finding a route to market.
AVACTA are one step closer today.