Member Info for Hartlebury

I came to the conclusion a while ago that the bidstats seem to show maximum potential spend over a specified period and then actual spend is published at its conclusion. No idea if that is correct, but if it is then we should soon see a final spend on phase one contract. Then if there’s no publication authorising spend on phase 2 should we conclude that it hasn’t been triggered? Any thoughts on this theory?

Should add the potentially complicating factor that of course the timing of announcement is subject to agreement with DHSC. So they may have had ‘a nod’ but no official sign off yet? Hopefully this will also be clarified by the end of the month

B2 there isn’t any such evidence and I firmly believe that the company would be obliged to announce the go ahead of phase 2 once obtained as it would most definitely shift the SP significantly.

That’s what I mean Kaeren, if the staff either just don’t exist or too many are off isolating due to covid then the number of machines becomes irrelevant, quite worrying. I’m not concerned about the Surescreen tests, as any positive requires PCR confirmation then they are no different to Innova, unless more accurate, in which case that means more PCR. I wonder where Microgen’s Antibody LFT is right now..due for release isn’t it?

I agree LFT’s are useless but I think it’s pretty evident that demand for testing is so high that it would be impossible to test everyone with PCR, that is why they still insist that only those with symptoms or a positive LFT should get one. There was I think, a short period when cases were low that anyone, even if asymptomatic could get a PCR but that’s definitely not the case now. My question is whether phase 2 is launched depends on staff more than anything else, could it be that there simply aren’t enough qualified people, even with promate, to make use of more Q machines? Why still a gap between declared capacity and actual tests processed? Example from Friday, approx 778k PCR capacity, 501k tests processed.

Hi Deas interesting question. I know at least one big company (20k employees) is relying on antibody tests rather than LFT’s for regular staff testing for covid and always found it odd because as I understand it, the time taken, post infection, for antibodies to be produced varies from person to person/days to weeks. But I’m not medically trained so I’m thinking if the intention is to use these in place of existing LFT’s maybe there is some almost instantaneous level of antibody development (like baby antibodies that don’t have any protective effect yet?) and these tests are more sensitive to that than an LFT would be in early stage detection of infection? Medical knowledge would help here if anyone has it!

Really hope these replace LFT’s in care homes (1st priority) and schools - madness to allow pupils with negative LFT’s to avoid isolation.

We won’t be able to convince him otherwise Troublesome..and to be fair I sympathise with the argument to an extent. Difference is we vaccinate against flu and have it under some level of control, this may eventually be the case with covid but right now it’s threatening the nhs and therefore our whole infrastructure, I can’t see any alternative to lockdown, even with the terrible price (not just monetary) that it entails.

There is a glimmer of hope that London numbers may be flattening/dropping Hamsters, I hope it isn’t a false dawn. Unfortunately elsewhere they are rising fast but London hospitals really need some relief and quickly, several doctor friends who are in the thick of it compare it to MASH...

Oh dear we have an ‘it’s just a flu’ brigade representative. I could post any number of links to counter your view but won’t waste my time.

Terrifying Troublesome.

To put the US/Uk situation on tracking into perspective, the US has analysed 60,000 samples and the UK 200,000. Against populations of 332m/68m!

Agree Kaeren...just reading this about how sub standard US surveillance is compared to UK. Dr Birx has suggested a mutant strain is rife in the US (I suspect she is looking at California’s horrendous figures in particular), but they can’t be sure because the diagnostics aren’t there in the same way as in the UK. We think NCYT have been a key part of the UK’s effort in this respect, if so there is a massive opportunity here for them, which I’m sure they will grab with both hands

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253467

They don’t know - this is true..and (bearing in mind anecdote is not data) my personal experience of living in London right now is hearing more and more of people who are sure they had covid in early 2020 now contracting it again. Can’t prove this because first time round you could only get a test if hospitalised, so it may not be the case but it seems that either natural immunity wanes or doesn’t work against new strain. Quite worrying, the logistics of annual vaccinations for a whole population against an ever mutating virus is pretty horrific (flu vax is hard enough against just a vulnerable section of population).

These accounts of people being vaccinated and catching covid shortly after are unfortunate for those involved but shouldn’t be a surprise. As others have pointed out, it takes several weeks for the body to respond to the vaccine and build up antibodies , until then you are still vulnerable. Even after that, it is only expected that the vaccine will usually stop you getting very ill/dying with the virus, as opposed to not getting it at all. The question about whether it stops you transmitting the virus has still to be answered.

Porky you are welcome to take a child off my hands to homeschool and feed seemingly every 45 mins - might relieve the boredom (though probably not)...definitely won’t help the descent into insanity!

Porky are you ok? Hitting the pear liqueur at 4.30am?

Wilson good luck with the bypass, I’m sure it will be fine - enjoy being looked after well before and after. When do you go in?

https://twitter.com/primerdesignltd/status/1347507095785136129?s=21

I got the feeling Tay tired of the trolls on Twitter

Porky where has your chill gone?

I’ve said it before but will repeat, I don’t think there’s a risk of a ‘too cheap’ takeover at this stage. Most shares are in PI hands, judging by the very low volume in recent weeks they are relatively LTH’s and presumably have a great deal of faith in GM who will guide them - he presumably will know what value is possible and what would be too good an offer to refuse. So if he agreed to something it would probably be acceptable to us and conversely, a hostile takeover would be very very difficult, usually that would be achieved by persuading institutions with large holdings to agree to a deal (thus nailing the outcome to a certain %) and from there it would be put to a shareholder vote, which BOD would recommend a vote against.