George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
https://www.boerse-berlin.com/index.php/Shares?isin=VGG4392T1075
Spread is 38.38% with little volume
MrA, your 13:58. Absolutely correct, the CS is not fit for purpose. However, reforming it is another matter. Entrenched bureaucratic management, political correctness, & unions will block (or sabotage) the progress any such attempt.
Why? There is no timescale for 'in the coming days', it's undefined. Presumably, it was used because the Approver has their own timescale for actioning which Avacta can't influence. My own experience of public service bodies is that something MAY be dealt with........ eventually.
Wyndrum, ofcourse you could be either right or wrong. Therefore, the line of this debate is pointless as we are ALL speculating, much like discussing a game of football before the match. All the 'ifs' 'ands' 'buts' & 'may be(s)' are a complete waste of time. The game ends, we have a result, & we discuss the game again with 'ifs' 'ands' 'buts' & 'may be(s)'. Obviously pointless, but it fills the need for those who 'know better'.
Have Avacta missed the covid opportunity? If we end up with the best lfd that can be used to test accurately for this & numerous other diseases, the answer must be no. Whether or not we missed THE boat, or A boat, can only be discussed once we have finished the journey. So probably not for a long time. ('in the coming months').
Wyndrum, do You really believe, or do you think the experts believe, that the virus will be eradicated in the short, or long, term? If so, what sort of timeframe do you put on it?
And is it possible a variant or mutation may evolve that could be very contagious &/or difficult to treat?
AS has told us that it will take 10mins for an indication, but 20mins for confirmation. So does it take 5mins to register etc, then take the test & wait 20mins for the result. Hope it is ours, but still happy to wait for official announcement(s).
my 6 pennyworth:
the contract is between The Authority & GAD
3.1.10 Test Developer to grant a licence to Mologic......
3.3 Supplier not the 'manufacturer of record'
If neither Mologic nor GAD, whose IPR is being licensed for manufacture?
If 43 & 45 are avacta, it would suggest bams has been validated.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-and-procurement-of-coronavirus-covid-19-tests/products-in-the-pipeline-tvg-validation-concluded-or-paused