Member Info for doze

I think Boris may have moved on to better things. Tests will be in the post soon.

I thought you were well up with affimer/AVCT research Quickdraw18. It is my belief affimers can bind to the covid antigen earlier than anything else and will help control it.

Thanks, My first love is definitely searching for a good investment but the bb does make me appreciate a plaudit!

"saliva is disadvantaged in my opinion by the use of frozen samples. The nucleoprotein will come through freezing while the spike protein will not so the positive samples are flawed and validation in an EU hospital might get round this . My hope is validation and quick rollout by Mologic and testing in Africa will bring the excellent data AS boasts about and which at last, is fact." - from my post 10/2 and looks like AS was already on to it and Porton Down not up to speed. Could be new post brexit rules forced the Spanish evaluation too. The messed update in HuffPost from the DHSC which had me fooled has allowed the company to break NDA and confirm in dialogue with the DHSC. Seems a very muted use of language but hope Boris will say more today.

travel_light, evaluation figures have come out better than Innova? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943187/S0925_Innova_Lateral_Flow_SARS-CoV-2_Antigen_test_accuracy.pdf Innova 91.67 sensitivity 99.23 specificity Our predictive value was better in the recent evaluation. rns/AVCT; 96.7 and 100 from a lower CT sample.

Why was HuffPost rampy when the government owe us some info as AS is not allowed to break ranks. The article was further corroborated with an official update.
Too much deramping going on here there will be no rise in SP with evidence trashing.

The Mologic test evaluated with AN version so suspect Porton Down has the same one evaluated and validated in secret and ready to roll out ergo the version currently being assessed and mentioned by DHSC as a footnote (who cannot be facebooked) must be saliva only.

£2; That's the £500m mc RNmyS and will be the opening SP by the MMs if they have any sense.

Thanks for all the enthusiasm which I am not good at-very necessary. I have wondered how news would be dropped especially following the court ruling on late contract publishing. They never thought out how to treat us fairly and to rely on Unprecedented then CityAM (which failed to light the fuse) then HuffPost UK I suppose was a clever way to do it. It was safer to wait for good S&S evaluation and indications that saliva might be ready for the schoolchildren to try out at home.

The SP has only responded to the prospect of tests and treatments so far and the financial advisors have not piled in while the PIs have ridden the roller coaster; this will now change and especially when we get past £500m when they perk up.

It is not crap Timster. The Mina examination of Liverpool data debunked that criticism and rightly so if you want our LFT to shine compared to pcr tests. Crap compared to ours maybe but would have been useful if applied like the Chinese did.

Up about 35p on the week and not big volume today.

The consortium is no excuse for clandestine buying then. I think a lot of consortium spend has been put in the public domain but just not straightforwardly as for the sovereign test. This needs to change as mentioned in the article; for proper scrutiny and debate.

My head. The 30 samples are to test the LFT but how were they selected?

Matt, they are missing their target by selecting positives from poorly selected poisitives. It is only antigens that infect but these cannot be isolated for samples as it is already too late-the infectious have infected everyone already. Test first thing in the morning before you do your teeth with an AffiDx.

yenom;"This indicates a clinical sensitivity of 96.7% for samples with a Ct value below 26." That is an obtuse way of saying all 30 tested positive except for one in the 22-25 range. Of course the CT value is inversely proportional to virus load so the lower CT positives must have more virus naturally for detection to happen. However a test using pcr as I understand looks for constituents of the virus within the shell and not the antigen spikes which is what is infectious. So those 22-25 range samples may have been chosen from a 1000 cohort which could potentially have had many antigen spikes which were missed. This is why only LFT in use will determine if it is any good as even these clinical evaluations are flawed.

Also I would say affimers detect a couple of days earlier than the innova test- the main selling point

imo the rns emphasises the 22-25(viral load subject to less amplifying yet still detected) as being very sensitive from the 30 samples which may have been selected from a batch of 1000 pcr tests yielding 30 positives with 15 in the 22-25 and 15 in the 26. Only one of the 22-25 came negative, all 15 of the 26 were positive. But how pointless is the exercise if samples were from a cohort of 1000 whittled down to 30?

Also vindicates the Innova test but expect ours to be more accurate in validation.

Wouldn't surprise me if IG have a hotline to the MMs and when such as us increase a bet they attempt to tree shake. You need a big bank I am learning to defeat them.

Hoping for better tomorrow ahead of more leaks and Boris strategy roadmap on Monday which will confirm likely government orders for a sovereign test.

The antigen test does not involve ct so no credit from me PL. Even if promoted to gold standard it will be S&S figures that matter but only re tests that can detect the infectious at earliest possible onset.. To succeed the discussion around the LFT has to move away from CT. I don't know if viral load includes antigen load if that is correct use of antigen or whether virions has to be used which is the complete particle. I just want to differentiate our test as identifying the spike on the shell which indicate the infective form of a virus
https://www.wordnik.com/words/virion