The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
ak_gabba you're essentially right.
I didn't read the article, so they say 15 cycles shows a positive result. 40 cycles won't affect this, you'll still see it at 15. Anything around the 40 mark is probably negative.
You can't run too many cycles. Just as long as you don't try to interpret results from anything that only becomes "detectable" above 37 cycles.
For something that is present in relatively high quantities you would detect it anywhere between 20 and 30 cycles, and you'll see that afterwards. Adding another 10-20 cycles is pointless but it won't affect the results that already came from the lower range. The only downside from running more cycles is that it takes up precious time.
So no, the test itself isn't too sensitive. You simply shouldn't run it for too many cycles as it then becomes questionable as to whether the viral RNA is really present or just giving a false positive.
I do hope you're right and I admire your optimism!
The sooner we can get back to some sort of normality the better.
We have flu vaccines every year because we don't need to change so much of the code to the previous year - the foundational research is there already. But if you want to pluck examples out of thin air that relate to Coronavirus in no way whatsoever, then I'll give you the example of HIV. In 1984 Scientists insisted there'd be a vaccine in 2 years... fastforward 36 years - nada! Because the virus mutation rate is fast and creating vaccines that look like the virus but don't elicit the same response is pretty challenging.
Of course, for obvious reasons, companies are going to say they are developing vaccines. I hope someone does develop an efficient and reliable one soon! I prefer to remain sceptical until there is concrete proof.
Not IMO, but from years of research.
You can't simply fast-track vaccine production by speeding up the trials and expediting approvals because "we need it fast to cure Covid-19". The main problem being that long term trials for side effects are usually desirable... This is why there is scepticism for the new Russian vaccine.
Ozboy - "It's still doesn't mutate very fast. In general terms mutation is not a significant issue."
It is mutating and it is a significant issue! We don't know what these mutations will do to the virus (probably make it less serious, since the virus doesn't actually "want" to kill people - it wants to propagate). But it's still mutating, and mutating fast enough to make vaccine development more difficult.
A reliable and effective vaccine is unlikely for q1 2021.
I wish people would stop spouting opinions and predictions for the science. That's not how it works. We want facts around here.
Also just topped up and they're being displayed as sells
I remember asking peoples opinion on this before and the response was "fill your boots".
Glad I used my better judgement and didn't follow the BB.
Anyway, GLA
I did the same!
Here we go
Maybe a little late but with YGEN you know the kit will have solid foundations within a market that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As Pacman said, their infrastructure is there and has been tried and tested.
Something they've added which is very nice indeed is the research-only kit. Highly important and something others have yet to consider.
As mentioned already, still good news for NCYT. Global demand for testing can only increase in the months (and years) ahead. NCYT is already there treading the path for others.
Very good news albeit unexpected. I particularly like the strong testing capabilities mentioned. A new test is nice as always (global demand won't decline any time soon) but also the research-only kit, which is very important and which other companies haven't provided yet. This will generate a lot of attention and will do wonders for the share price.
BUT... remember why we are all invested here in the first place! The Covid stuff is work on the side and there will be more to come. Don't get too distracted once more people join and this moves north :-)
GLA
I can only agree with technik. LAMP is cheaper and easier to use BUT definitely rougher around the edges.
In the research setting we wouldn't touch LAMP with a barge pole. qPCR is still the gold standard and I think in times like these we need the gold standard.
I think I said before already - NCYT brought me here but I stayed for YGEN.
Very happy to sit on this long-term, just glad that I found it one way or another :-)
John - you're right, they can become extinct but only if immunity strongly outweighs infection susceptibility to one particular strain. Unfortunately, Coronavirus just loves humans, meaning infection rate is high as we all know. Immunity is currently very low so there's no control from that end. Therefore, if the evidence that the virus is gradually mutating is true then there is no chance of it becoming extinct. If, however, a vaccine came out tomorrow and we were all vaccinated the next day before the virus could spread further then maybe we'd be in with a chance...
Parkez - I would (hopefully) consider myself qualified enough to answer the question as well after some decades in biomedical research. We scientists rarely offer opinions, so let me be somewhat clearer - given the current publications describing the coronavirus and what we already know from countless epidimiological studies, the virus won't disappear in a puff of smoke any time soon. It has already been published that there is a degree of genetic drift, suggesting that it could mutate on a yearly basis as is the case with influenza. There is still the current wave which could last 1-2 years and then we could very well witness the emergence of new strains.
Hope you don't mind me stealing Seadoc's answer but if he has any more to add I'd be more than happy!