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.
You seem like a decent chap. Look at Sona. Many holders there were getting frustrated. Then bam one day the news came and they were 100% up. Not saying that will happen here but Sona timeline is a good one to look at.
These things Take time.
Avacta who Integumen have partnered with are making a rapid test for covid that uses saliva. Should be available soon.
It’s a saliva test. I wonder if it’s direct or though a tube that may also add some buffer etc?
I doubt it’s going to be a quite as simple as we’d hope but if it cuts out the nasal swab element it will be a winner.
1 major development a week is pretty substantial to me.
It also says “Positive tests do not differentiate between SARS-Cov and SARS-Cov-2” ?! ??
I’d rather be 2nd with the saliva test than first with sonas nasal swab test imo
Take a look at this boys and girls.
Not seeing much competition here. Looks like such a convoluted process. Also you have to time It for 15 mins. If you wait 20 mins the result might be wrong. Which really rules out doing mass screening of lots of tests at once say in an airport etc without loads of operators???
- https://youtu.be/wnRW94aruKk
As said in the other thread this is just the title of the paper. It's auto tweeted. Avacta are not trying to tell us their test has bad sensitivity...
It’s pcr I believe
Perfect timing if you ask me
Whilst Sona may be 96% accurate at detecting the virus on a swab (tested only 30 times on a perfectly prepared sample) - this doesn’t account for the difficulty in making nasal swabs. Especially by non professionals...
Some links that demonstrate real world accuracy likely to be better with saliva sample.
https://azbigmedia.com/business/asu-researchers-develop-cheaper-faster-saliva-test-for-covid-19/
Saliva tests may be even more accurate than nasal tests, said Joshua LaBaer, executive director of the Biodesign Institute. Nasopharyngeal swabs involve inserting a cotton swab into the nose and pushing it to the back of the palate, where the sample is collected. The swab then is put into about half a teaspoon of liquid, mostly saline.
“But in the case of the saliva test, the entire sample is produced by the person,” he said. “So, if there’s virus in there, there’s probably a little bit more virus in the saliva test. So, in our hands, it’s as effective, and in at least a couple of cases it looks like it might be a little bit more effective.””
The authors found that oropharyngeal swabs significantly outperformed nasal swabs in terms of both sensitivity and accuracy: throat swabs missed only 14 percent of positive cases, as opposed to almost 60 percent that were missed by the nasal swabs.
https://www.labroots.com/trending/clinical-and-molecular-dx/18056/throat-swabs-prevent-covid-false-negatives
This isn’t to do with lateral flow from what I can see
He’s also done the same on Sona board though so who knows...
Seems trolly or at best a cross ramp.
Always whining
So you still think that it’s a big if we will meet the required standard?
So you’ve gone from us having no test to having to wait for the test.
I can wait. Thanks for the heads up
Great early data from their LFD but they aren’t there yet.
They still have to conduct in field validation.
Is there any chance we could do on field validation at same time as lab data being collected???
Also interesting that they hire mri global for the LOD data but the other data was gathered in house. They didn’t even use live samples. And they only did 30 negative. Then added covid Spikes to those 30 Negatives.
“Validation studies were also conducted in-house to assess potential clinical performance of the test using 30 nasopharyngeal samples from healthy individuals who were presumed negative for COVID-19. Results from the study generated a specificity of 96% (29/30) and a sensitivity of 96% (28/29). All specimen samples tested generated negative results, except for one, generating the above result of 96%. To generate the sensitivity data, the remnants of each negative sample were spiked with gamma irradiated COVID-19 virus and the tests rerun to determine the positive results, generating the above result of 96%.”
I think that’s been answered Chendo. He’s talking about the revenue this will test will generate. It won’t generate revenue if it can’t be sold due to regulatory failings.
Don’t think we should be expecting 100m tests a month quite yet but it won’t be hard to sell whatever we can make.
Very much doubt we could produce that many but we won’t have any trouble selling them