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.
Latino, Jimjam and others: Yes, this is good news indeed. Knee cruciate ligament rupture is a very common sporting injury.
TRX is something of a hidden gem in my view. We are going to have to be very patient here as there are many folk who are under water and some may want to sell into any spike as has happened this morning. Covid-19 is obviously having a negative effect as many routine operations are being postponed. The smart money will, I think, hold tight as this Company will come through both in the USA and Europe in due course and will hopefully surprise us all. Contrary to many predictions at the time of the 0.25 pence cash-call, the SP has not dropped to that 0.25 pence level and there appears to be solid support at 0.3 pence. Indeed, I added nearly 2 million shares at that level quite recently and haven't sold a single share. Good luck everybody and keep safe.
Ophidian: Just want to express my gratitude to you for your truly expert professional advice about the protocols to which high quality corporations such as Cytiva/Danaher will be adhering. I sense your frustration at times. Your high quality posts are like gold-dust.
On the topic of global incidence, it is very sad to note that several South American countries (Colombia, Argentina, Brazil) are reporting very high new case rates. Japan and the Philippines are declaring higher rates. The USA has, over the last six days, reported between 70,200 and 47,973 new cases; yesterday's tally was 55,100. Closer to home, France and Spain are suffering badly.
These "spikes" cannot be accounted for by increased testing because the death-rate globally is still running at over 6,000 deaths per day. American folk are despairing at the line-ups for cumbersome, lengthy result-delay tests.
A rapid-result, easy-to-repeat, cheap, high Sensitivity/Specificity POC test, with integration to a nation-wide data-collecting-base will be totally transformational. Cytiva/Danaher will know exactly what they are doing. Rightly, they will aim high. The safety of millions is at stake.
Ddubya- I like your smart thinking ! Yes, Samsung's manoeuvres will always have an internal coherence and will, of course, be self-serving. By implication, these complicated and contrived moves do suggest that Samsung recognises a distinct probability of having to pay significant damages. If Samsung thought they would win, why would they be going through a substantial repositioning of their display empire ? I can't believe they would do this in a "damage(s)" limitation exercise purely on the issue of the Nanoco law-suit. Samsung appear to hold the small-fry companies in contempt. It is my fantasy that there may well be potential IP-conflict issues relating to QNED and TFE with Dow/Du Pont. I'm not suggesting that there has already been an IP transgression, but Samsung would be much more wary of infringing a high-profile and very American corporation such as Dow/Du Pont.
Global politics come into this too, surely. Whoever wins the US presidency on November 3rd, there will be a deepening of the rift between the US and China. Extended supply chains between the West and the Far East will come under further scrutiny and stress. Samsung has bolstered its ties with TCL, in whom they have a major shareholding, and thereby secures its local markets, albethey much more price sensitive.
Back to Nanoco. To me, the litigation funding has been a watershed moment. There can only be up-side to the balance-sheet. I can't see the commercial advantage of Samsung stringing the case out ad infinitum. As you have suggested, ddubya, Samsung has positioned itself to minimise near-term prospective-revenue damages. If they stretch it out too long, Samsung could get stung for damages on prospective earnings of what will be their high-end, high-profit, flagship QD OLED and QNED projects. And why would they delay those important projects just because of their wish to protract the Nanoco law-suit?
Anyway, enough convoluted thinking !! GLA and keep safe.
Talk about complicated and fast moving !! Thanks to ddubya and idontmessabout for those very interesting links. So, turmoil between Samsung Display and Samsung Electronics. Apple suppliers shifting, too. Is it fantastical to think that IP may lie at the heart of some of these shifts ? It will not be lost on Dow/Du Pont (now merged, of course) that Samsung is being legally challenged by both Nanoco and JOLED. Dow has supported some of the academic work on QNED and Du Pont has been involved with Kateeva. Merck has bought a significant raft of OLED patents from Minolta. Both Merck and Dow have research establishments in Massachusetts, USA. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, has stated emphatically that Apple's strategy is always to look to the long term. Apple has left the door open with Nanoco.
The World is changing and extended supply lines are under threat. Whilst Samsung seem intent on allegedly abusing the minnows (Nanoco, JOLED, Kateeva), they would be genuinely fearful of taking on an IP challenge from either Merck or Dow/Du Pont. Merck's purchase of the Minolta patents may be very significant. Dow/Du Pont have investments in aspects of both QNED and Thin Film Encapsulation (TFE). The plot is very definitely thickening and quite possibly to Nanoco's advantage. All very fascinating !
It would appear that the display market is in profound flux. This is only my reading of it, so please guide/correct me:
1) For many years, Merck was a huge player in Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). This is changing (see below).
2) LG, who, back in 2015, rejected Nanoco's QDs in favour of proceeding with their OLED products. LG explored the QD option with Nanoco/Dow at considerable depth. LG then committed to OLED, now Active Matrix OLED (AMOLED).
3) At about the same time (2014/2015), Samsung in deep talks with Nanoco/Dow regarding Trevista QDs. Simultaneously (Sept.2014), Samsung invested in Kateeva in the US, who were specialists in ink-jet deposition, called Thin Film Encapsulation (TFE).
4) 2015 onwards, Samsung, with alleged theft of IP from Nanoco, proceeds with Cadmium-free QDs in vertically integrated manufacture in collaboration with its in-house partner, Hansol.
5) Merck still pursuing its LCD strategy, with official partnership announced with Nanoco on August 1st, 2016.
6) April, 2019, SEMES, a subsidiary of Samsung, withdraws from LCD.
7) October, 2019, Samsung proposes $11 Billion investment in newly evolving QD products for display. Major changes include bringing the QD emissive layer to the front of the stack (QD OLED) for 2021 and then development of Quantum Nanorod Emissive Diode (QNED) for 2022/2023. Apparently, there has been some hesitation in rolling out this new investment plan. Note that some of the academic work for QNED at the University of Illinois has backing from Dow Chemical.
8) February, 2020, Samsung withdraws all interest and investment in Kateeva, switching all to its own SEMES. Note that Kateeva had a collaboration with Du Pont.
9) April, 2020, Merck announces purchase of 700 families of patents for OLED products from Minolta.
10) As we all know, in the midst of all this, Nanoco challenges Samsung regarding alleged IP theft. Firstly in informal talks held in March, 2019, then, after no resolution, formal law-suit, with full Litigation Funding for Jury Trial in Texas for Nanoco announced very recently.
So, a very complex and rapidly changing landscape with all manner of complex relationships in the mix. Add into this the posture and potential of the Chinese majors, such as TCL. In laying out the above, I hope not to confuse, but to give some idea of the immense complexity. The two big take-aways are that LCDs appear to be in a major decline and QDs in the ascendant. In addition, Nanoco has significant heft in the Infra-red space, both for sensors and possible applications in Photo-Voltaic technology.
I am quietly positive and will sit this out as the plot thickens further ! GLA and keep safe.
I am fascinated to know how Bacanora Lithium (BCN) will react. In a recent interview with their CEO, Peter Secker, he mentioned Cinovec, but made it clear that his focus was very much on their Sonora (Mexico) project, partnered with Genfang, the Chinese Lithium major. BCN apparently have the mining rights to the Zinnwald (German side) portion of the Cinovec deposit, which is rather smaller than the Czech portion. I got the impression that Secker would happily dispense their Zinnwald rights to a third party. Is this the right time for Coughlan to move in on this asset ? Could get interesting!!
Fingers, Sid and Lawrence: Would just like to say a huge "thank you" to you guys for being the "Constant Gardeners" of EMH. You've been amazingly watchful and so helpful in posting links of fresh news. Well done Keith Coughlan and colleagues.
Holding firm, of course, as this is just the beginning. I feel so lucky to have got in. Fingers crossed for all you very long-holders who have been so very patient. Once again, thanks so much !
Fingers: As always, thanks so very much indeed for your continuing great vigilance.
Alex: Super interview with Keith Coughlan. Thanks so much for the link. Keith gives a very well thought out account of EMH's positioning. In a recent link to a comprehensive review of Northvolt's activities in Sweden, it was interesting to note that Northvolt has two lithium suppliers: one in Australia, with nearby Chinese owned processing; one in Canada, but not productive at the moment owing to financial constraints.
Northvolt is contracted to supply VW with 16 GW p.a. by 2024. VW expects it will need 150 GW p.a. by 2025. LG-Chemical is ramping up its production from 10 GW to 70 GW over the next two years from its plant in Poland. Bloomberg anticipates that the EU's Li-ion battery manufacturing capacity will edge past the US by 2023. There was a comment that expressed the idea that Lithium battery production has been an Asian play for three decades, but it is now to become a European play. Interesting to see how Britishvolt develops.
All very encouraging ! Thanks again.
RorkesDrift: Potentially, yes. The amazing virtue of Affimers is that they are small molecules which can be manipulated to latch on to biological molecules. Because the mortality of most influenzas is relatively low (less than 0.5%), the scientific community hasn't really bothered very much with screening for seasonal influenzas. The choice of a 'flu vaccine becomes a bit of a lottery, in that the epidemiologists cannot predict with absolute precision which strain of seasonal 'flu virus will come around each Autumn/Winter.
I would add that some influenzas are extremely dangerous. The 1918/1919 pandemic was caused by the H1N1 Influenza virus which killed tens of millions of people world-wide. It was first identified as a particularly aggressive 'flu in 1917 by a British Army Surgeon, Dr Hammond, who dubbed this "new" disease "Purulent Influenza". Little did he know that it would escalate into a global pandemic.
Covid-19 has been a HUGE wake-up call. Hitherto, the West has largely ignored the relatively recent infections from SARS-CoV-1 and MERS (despite mortalities of 10% and 34%, respectively) because those infections were confined largely to South-East Asia. We were just complacent and didn't bother.
The World has now changed. Western governments will now have to plan properly for large-scale infections, even if such events are rare. Companies such as Avacta, who, with very competent collaboration with major corporations such as Danaher/Cytiva, can prove to be fleet-of-foot in preparing very high-grade tests for large-scale testing programmes, will have an assured future. Governments will have to rebuild their public health infrastructure (decimated over the last several years in both the USA and UK) and be better prepared.
I think the announcement from the Rockefeller Foundation speaks for not only now, but for a higher state of alert for the future, and I quote:
"We need to urgently fix clinical diagnostic testing and accelerate the introduction of faster, cheaper point-of-care screening tests to prepare for next 'flu season..... This represents the single best investment America could make in averting an even more tragic and pending disaster.... The only alternative is more large-scale lockdowns. The price of that is far too high to pay when we don't have to, if we make smart, strategic, science-based investments now."
RP and Pigster: As a retired medic/surgeon, I am trying to put the record straight ! It is exactly because I detect a great deal of confusion, that I have tried to explain in straight-forward terms what Sensitivity and Specificity mean. Alastair Smith correctly introduces the concepts of Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) and these are epidemiologically important as they include the Prevalence of the disease in different groups (high in care-workers, rather lower in the general population). But, the Prevalence factor does NOT change the essential definition of Sensitivity and Specificity.
HIGH SENSITIVITY: The ability to respond to an antigen even when the antigen is at a very low concentration. You want to pick up as many cases of infection as you can.
HIGH SPECIFICITY: The ability to respond ONLY to a very SPECIFIC antigen. You want your test to be able to differentiate between Covid-19 and, say, influenza.
Pigster, in your prior post, you declared: " sensitivity- the ability to not give false positives" and "specificity- the ability to not give false negatives". Please believe me when I say that those are the wrong way round.
Dr Smith makes it very clear that one of the major aims is to maximize the Negative Predictive Value(NPV). A HIGH NPV means LOW FALSE NEGATIVES. This would mean in his own words "There is a high level of confidence in a negative result being correct." This is particularly important regarding Sensitivity and I have already explained why. A FALSE NEGATIVE result when you are INFECTIOUS is very bad news for everyone else.
It would have been a bit more helpful if Dr Smith had explained carefully the definitions of Sensitivity and Specificity right at the beginning, before launching off into the more complicated (but important) definitions of PPV and NPV.
Pigster and others: Let us be absolutely clear about Sensitivity and Specificity:
HIGH SENSITIVITY means LOW FALSE NEGATIVES.
HIGH SPECIFICITY means LOW FALSE POSITIVES.
Sensitivity rating is very important. Think about it. You have the disease, but the test has poor Sensitivity, so you show up as NEGATIVE. So, you are told you are NOT INFECTIOUS, where as actually you are. You go about your day-to-day activities as a SPREADER, believing you are not.
Specificity is less crucial from a disease management point of view. A low Specificity test would come up POSITIVE for diseases other than Covid-19. So, if you do NOT have Covid-19, a poor Specificity test might show you as POSITIVE. You isolate unnecessarily, which is bad for you, but NOT HARMFUL for everybody else.
High Specificity will become more crucial as we head towards Autumn/Winter when seasonal Influenzas become rife.
Rather sadly, the US FDA has become something of a Wild-West. Danaher/Cytiva will be perfectionists about their tests. They have a reputation to protect. The huge benefit to society, and Cytiva, and Avacta, will be when they declare the Gold Standard, user-friendly, sensibly-priced, do it at home/office/shop/factory/sporting event/political rally test which will blow the doors off. More time spent now perfecting this test will bring enormous dividends for the future. Just be patient!
Just a little bit more on the Quantum Nanorod Light Emitting Diode:
These LEDs can both emit and absorb light. The structure is composed of a rod, consisting of three semiconductor materials, asymmetrically covered in a thin film of Quantum Dots. The Nanorod collects electrons and the QD shells collect positive charges. The two combined can generate and emit light. The process is reversible- the QD-Nanorods can collect light. Dr Moonsub Shim, Professor of Material Science and Engineering at Illinois University, states:
"These LEDs are the beginning of enabling displays to do something completely different, moving well beyond just displaying information to being much more interactive devices. That can be the basis for new and interesting designs for a lot of electronics."
Interesting to note that the University of Illinois is collaborating with Dow Electronic Materials of Marlborough, Massachusetts !!
Apparently, most of the academic research so far has used Cadmium/Selenium-derived QDs, but any application to consumer devices would obviously favour Cadmium-Free QDs.
From the sound of it, Quantum Dot Nanorod technology has huge potential, not just in consumer electronic devices. The ability to both emit and collect light seems to be the key.
So, it seems that QD's are undoubtedly used in the proposed QNED devices but arranged in a different way than before. The tech-Team at Nano will have a deep understanding of all these issues. The potential for the use of QDs may be entering a new and very interesting phase ! How much this new technology, as far as Samsung intends to use it, is predicated upon the IP allegedly stolen from Nano remains to be seen !
n3m3sis187: Thanks very much for your comments. I've been trying to understand the evolution of Samsung's products. I'm no expert here, but put simply, I think it goes like this, but do please correct me:
1) Present tech is QLED. The QD layer is at the back of the "sandwich". Problems include poor blacks, lost colour volume, lost pixels and lower contrast.
2) Next generation tech is QD OLED, being deveoped for 2021. Big difference is that the QD layer is brought forward to the very top of the "sandwich". Because it's OLED, problems include not super-bright and burn-in.
3) Quantum Nano Emitting Diode (QNED) proposed for 2022/2023. Big difference is that the Organic back layer is replaced with Gallium Nitride (GaN), which should give brighter, longer lasting, more stable colours and is cheaper to make because the GaN does not need to be encapsulated to prevent oxygen degradation, unlike the OLED back-layer.
Crucially, all these generations require QDs and Samsung has, from the get-go, used zero-Cadmium QDs. So, how does this place Samsung for the next several years regarding the law-suit ? If the suit goes against them, they would have to compensate Nano not only for TVs already-sold, but also a lump-sum or royalty fees for any future sales. Apparently, Samsung have shut down further LCD research and their focus is on perfecting the emissive QD top-layer which will work for for both gen2) Q OLED and gen3) QNED.
I tend to agree with you that Samsung may well negotiate hard but go for a deal. The statistics of only 5% of cases actually proceeding to Trial supports this. The second suit of JOLED versus Samsung being conducted in the Western District of Texas Court can only add pressure and stigma to their reputation. Samsung TVs are deliberately priced high, therefore aiming at advanced wealthy economies like the USA. A Trial would attract negative publicity, surely, in one of their prime markets. At interview, ME was specific in saying that Nano's lawyers had stress-tested their case rigorously. I think that ME's use of the words "will not go unnoticed" in the RNS was a veiled warning to Samsung that game-playing and delay tactics would be viewed very dimly. We shall see. All power to Nano's elbow! Good luck everybody.
n3m3sis187: Thanks very much for your most helpful links and comments regarding the LCD market. Thanks also to other very helpful posters. Hitherto, Merck has been a very major player in the LCD market. Very interesting to note their acquisition of the Minolta OLED patents. It's been known for some time that Samsung is planning a major evolution of their QD display products with their QNED products.
Merck and Nanoco have been in collaboration since August 1st, 2016 and there was a proposal at the time that Merck would build a factory in one of the North-Eastern States of the USA to fabricate products using joint Merck/Nanoco IP. I think there is potential in an ongoing relationship between Merck and Nano, and not just on the display side. It may be blue-sky thinking, but Merck is interested in photo-voltaics and "clever" window technology. It's worth remembering that many of Nano's earlier IP relates to P-V. Nano's early collaboration with Tokyo Electron didn't work out, but their P-V IP is still live.
Apple did not pursue their active relationship with Nano, but Apple must have seen potential as they were generous when it came to their withdrawal from Nano. The relationship with STmicro holds some promise and we look forward to an update from Michael Edelman on this regarding Infra-red sensors.
Encouraging that LOAM remains a very solid institutional investor and has been since April 1st, 2017. Richard Griffiths has invested since 2010. In the early days, RG possessed up to 23% of the Company. The lowest point of his holding was 5.06% in January, 2016, and 5.66% in July, 2019. Since then, he has increased to a holding which varies around the 10% mark.
From the litigation point-of-view, it's just fascinating to second-guess Samsung's strategy. Of course, Samsung has a second IP litigation to defend in the Western District of Texas Court, with JOLED as plaintiff. Impossible to know, but Nano isn't going to buckle, that's for sure.
Lastly, I'm encouraged by the chart formation. Nice staircase, with RSI staying over 50 for the last several months and the 50-day EMA closing in on a possible "Golden Cross" with the 200-day EMA.
Please forgive my ramblings. Just trying to marshal my thoughts. Good luck everybody and keep safe !
Tsibis: I do feel for the LTHs and, as a relative newcomer, I can feel occasional frustration. But, I hope we can put those frustrations aside and celebrate the many positives about EMH. I have learned to take a risk in something that is pregnant with great potential and then be patient, rather than clambering into a herd momentum stock. The engagement with DWGA looks appropriate and timely. The MMs are not playing games with the SP, which can be problematic. As Alex8464 reminds us in delightfully colourful language, the German Auto Industry mindset is very conservative.
The Sino-US/EU/UK political relationships are under stress and I see this as a positive for EMH. There is already a drawing back from allowing China to dominate strategic assets and infrastructure. Tesla remains the great disruptor. Charismatic futurists like Elon Musk can be ignored, but only at great peril. I think that when Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory becomes a functioning productive unit, any indolence and complacency will evaporate.
There is the issue of environmental concerns about the high energy demands of mining and processing. There would be an hypocrisy for the EU to blithely accept dirty mining/processing in Argentina/Peru/Mexico/Australia, plus the pollutant aspects of extended cargo lines, rather than looking towards its own door-step and working towards more environmentally-friendly mining/processing. Indeed, there could be EU political pressure to pump money into new technologies which enhance the environment-friendliness of local mining/processing projects. Then everyone can be seen to be winning. None of these issues will be lost on CEZ, that's for sure !
The epiphany will come, the mind-sets will shift. Lithium demand will increase, not decline. The advantages of local assets/knowledge/employment will rise to the top. As many of our diligent and watchful posters on this board have said, it can feel very good to be investing ahead of the game ! Slow and sure is OK ! Keep safe and GLA.
At long last, some informed common sense! Dr Hand lays it out exactly as it should be, unadulterated by endless misinformation:
1) 300 person trial at Ulster Uni demonstrates 98.6% accuracy for UK-RTC antibody test.
2) DoH already in negotiations with UK-RTC over millions of tests.
3) Distributed to healthcare professionals first, then to millions at home who would submit results to central database.
4) Tests to be free and ordered online.
5) By testing millions of people, data can be collected on prevalence of antibodies, whether ABs confer immunity and for how long.
6) If Covid-19 is like 'flu, people may need an annual vaccine. Mass AB testing needed to measure response to vaccine.
7) RTC test uses special capture mechanism (full-length spike protein), which gives high sensitivity to RTC test.
8) DoH declares that it has received extraordinary response to our call-to-action to supply AB tests.
9) DoH declares it continues to work with industry to identify further safe and accurate home-use tests.
10) Three batches of tens of thousands of prototypes manufactured for validation testing. In next few weeks, data will be submitted to MHRA watchdog for regulatory approval.
Most encouraging "from the horse's mouth" news to counter a great deal of mis-direction and mumbo-jumbo. GLA!
Screenlearner: My take is that any public statement made by Nano that refers to the IP litigation will be crafted by Nano's lawyers in the USA. Judge Gilstrap and his colleagues will be well acquainted with all the shenanigans played out by defendants, including delaying tactics.
Nano has to walk a fine-line legally. Presumably, it must not be seen to presume success in the IP-infringement trial, but it needs to demonstrate sufficient commercial distress owing to the loss of the royalties to which Nano considers it is entitled. I think the cash-call has been rather clever. Yes, Nano needed a modest cash boost to ensure their auditors can sign-off the books as a "going concern", but the tiny discount and the fact of oversubscription will demonstrate to Samsung that Nano is in no mood for surrender and has eager institutional and private investor support, both now and for the future.
It is worth repeating a commentary made about the KAIST (Korea Institute of Science and Technology) versus Samsung IP infringement case regarding Samsung stealing KAIST's FinFet 3-D transistor technology:
"Samsung showed no signs of backing off. Samsung seems to be ready for years of suits, its go-to strategy aimed at exhausting powerless patent holders such as individuals or small-sized outfits." This law-suit also involved Intel and Apple as co-defendants, so was quite high profile in the USA.
It is also worth repeating comments made by Edison Research on May 11th, 2017, which highlight how potentially crucial and disruptive Nano's IP is for large-scale QD manufacture. It is these aspects of the IP (amongst others) which Samsung has allegedly stolen:
"Nanoco was founded specifically to commercialize research, dating back to 2004, to solve the problem of manufacturing QDs at scale. The Company's molecular seeding process enables Cadmium-free QDs to be manufactured to precise scale (and therefore colour) without requiring rapid cooling. This makes a more simple process to scale-manufacture industrial quantities of QDs than the alternative high-temperature dual-injection method."
Furthermore, Edison believed that Nano's ease-of-scaling IP was a key factor in enabling Nano to secure licensing relationships with Dow and Merck.
To me, the double strike of agreed litigation funding and the oversubscribed small-discount-to-SP cash-call has derisked Nano's future considerably and I have upped my investment and would do so again on any SP weakness. Good luck everybody !
JBongo: Lombard Odier Asset Management was clearly in the frame from early on as they have agreed to underwrite a good proportion of the PrimaryBid offer. LOAM and Griffiths are joined at the hip as far as Nano is concerned. RG has been an investor in Nano for many years (pre-2012), initially using his ORA and Blake Holdings accounts. LOAM first invested on April 1st, 2017, basically buying up Henderson Global's shares. At that entry point, LOAM declared possession of 21.07% of the Company, together with a declared CFD of 2.14%. LOAM and RG are in cahoots in other AIM shareholdings, too.
Trickymatters: Good summary ! Certainly, the Guy's/St. Thomas'/Kings College study will require both a much larger cohort and repeated testing over years if it is to be regarded as a significant longitudinal study. You make a good point about possible very long-term immunity granted by exposure to pathogens when we are very young. However, it would not be correct to say that exposure in the very aged to the 1918/1919 pandemic might imbue immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as that pandemic was caused by an H1N1 virus.
Safy: I think you've answered your own questions about how antibody testing would need to complement any vaccination programme. There would need to be extensive pre-vaccination antibody testing, followed up by regular (3 to 6-monthly?) repeat antibody testing after vaccination. Again, a proper scientific protocol would demand that any studies be of a large cohort and extended over a long period to give scientifically valid longitudinal data.
Some investors may regard ODX as a proxy for forthcoming vaccines. Interesting that, today, the FDA granted fast-track approval for two vaccines being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech. Several vaccines are already in human trials. This is evidence that the normal slow pace of vaccine development and trials WILL be accelerated. Apart from the modest benefit from Remdesivir, there is no clinically accepted treatment for Covid-19 infection and this vacuum will put pressure on the development/approval of vaccines.
On two other issues: Richard Sneller's (Oryx) offloading seems rather badly timed. FinnCap need to up their game.
Secondly, totally agree that Colin King needs to give Paul McManus of Walbrook PR something of a rocket. Whilst King prefers to under-promise and over-perform, there is no excuse for slap-dash publicity material. Something to raise with King/McManus during the conference podcast, methinks. All in my opinion only. Please keep safe !