The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Good purchasing :-)
Buys/ sells are only shown as such if they are above/ below the mid point of the spread when it is posted. It isn’t very sophisticated
I use ii, generally good however when prices are moving/ fluctuating rapidly they rarely give you a firm price, it’s always ‘indicative’, which you should never agree to. It can take upto 30 mins to go through when the price is often vastly different... and it’s always you that loses out.
Entelion you couldn’t be more wrong. You have it completely the opposite way around. I posted a week back and will repost it now so that people don’t think what you are saying is right. As suggested in this string, watch the presentation!
Just a reminder for folk on the S&S requirements and targets! Sorry to the many that are fully versed.
Sensitivity: true positive
Specificity: true negative
Specificity is obviously the most important for our test, as we need to be sure people don’t have COVID-19. Worst case if a false positive is given is that someone has to go into hiding for a couple of days unnecessarily, while they wait for a PCR test to confirm.
MHRA guidance is;
Clinical sensitivity 80%
Clinical specificity 95%
In the AVCT presentation, the following are the performance figures attributed to S&S;
High;
Sensitivity: 95%
Specificity: 98%
Mid;
Sensitivity: 85%
Specificity: 90%
Low;
Sensitivity: 75%
Specificity: 85%
Avacta’s target is;
Sensitivity: 90% or better
Specificity: 95% or better
These are the figures to compare our results to in the imminent RNS.
Personally, if the specificity is 95% or higher, i will be over the moon! And happy with a sensitivity of 80% or higher... delirious if higher than 90%!
Specificity is the key to the use of our test, if this is high, we are in for some serious orders.
GLA
Although I am bullish for Avacta, I’m not convinced about these talks of announcements by U.K. and also USA... it won’t be Avacta... governments surely won’t announce to the world ‘we have a miracle POC test’ when it isn’t even clinically trialled or approved. I mean we are still optimising a prototype!
Just a reminder for folk on the S&S requirements and targets! Sorry to the many that are fully versed.
Sensitivity: true positive
Specificity: true negative
Specificity is obviously the most important for our test, as we need to be sure people don’t have COVID-19. Worst case if a false positive is given is that someone has to go into hiding for a couple of days unnecessarily, while they wait for a PCR test to confirm.
MHRA guidance is;
Clinical sensitivity 80%
Clinical specificity 95%
In the AVCT presentation, the following are the performance figures attributed to S&S;
High;
Sensitivity: 95%
Specificity: 98%
Mid;
Sensitivity: 85%
Specificity: 90%
Low;
Sensitivity: 75%
Specificity: 85%
Avacta’s target is;
Sensitivity: 90% or better
Specificity: 95% or better
These are the figures to compare our results to in the imminent RNS.
Personally, I feel that if the specificity is 95% or higher, i will be over the moon! And happy with a sensitivity of 80% or higher... delirious if higher than 90%!
Specificity is the key to the use of our test, if this is high, we are in for a hell of a nice ride!
GLA
There are many other variables at play if you are going to compare to Sona;
Our test is preferable to use by consumers (not invasive and uncomfortable like a swab)
The effectiveness of the direct saliva rather than a swab which may or may not pick up the virus therefore regardless of the S&S a swab may still often give a wrong result
Cost also, who’s will be cheaper, a huge driver for poorer countries
Etc.
You get my point, it isn’t only S&S we compare, other factors can make a product far superior
I disagree entirely.
I think a lot will be happening in parallel if the test is as good as we hope.
Plus the attention on such a product would surely help fast track the approvals... just think of trump finding out how accurate, cheap and reliable our test is, he would probably stamp his approval without clinical trials ;-)
You also forget news coming on many other fronts to bolster also.
Come on man, get real!
Could not agree more Timster;
“ https://youtu.be/xXTFovsvZnQ
watch from 3mins 12sec, Gerry tells you everything you need to know”
“ Affimer reagents are ideal for applications such as this, not only because of their sensitivity and specificity, but also because of their robustness, which is essential when being deployed in real-world situations, such as real-time waste water analysis.”
If the S&S is good enough to identify the virus from a floater in our sewerage system... I’m expecting a very pleasing RNS regarding the LFD S&S which uses saliva!! :-)
BBNow, I may have seemed contrasting to your post however I did not mean to be. I agree with what you said, however was just bolstering with additional, what I felt, positive views on other variables.
I agree also that we don’t have any real threats from Sona, or even elsewhere, as long as we get our product to market, given the sheer scale of the requirement.
I am very positive for Avacta, and believe we will have an excellent product, news on the progress of which hopefully next week. I take your point re: impatience. You are right there too... I do feel at times that Alistairs presentations and Interviews unintentionally set expectations too high when it comes to schedule... but that’s down to my interpretation which admittedly is impatient (or optimistic?).
I do think we are singing from the same hymn sheet wrt Avacta and where we believe it is headed.
There are other variables to compare that make a huge impact, it isn’t only about specificity and sensitivity. Two other variables for example are effectivity of the test, and cost of the product, which play a massive part!
Nasal swabs are extremely uncomfortable, and not reliable, even when administered by a professional, let alone the general public! So the 96/96 for me is not a benchmark that we must meet or exceed (albeit that would be amazing!). Anyone can spit in a cup! Therefore the effectivity of our test is greater. Notwithstanding Sona’s test is not yet clinically validated, would you rather have a 96/96 test that works 70% of the time, or a 90/95 test that works 95% of the time? And that’s assuming we don’t match or better Sonas product!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8387113/amp/DIY-swab-tests-dont-deep-nose-accurate-sample-experts-warn.html
Then of course cost, given we are expected to be cheaper this also makes a huge difference, especially when selling to poorer countries.
If our test is easier to use, more reliable and cheaper, then the 96/96 is not the benchmark we have to meet to overtake Sona’s test!
Other variables too such as distribution and ability to manufacture, which I believe Avacta to be ahead of Sona even now.
We do however need news ASAP to settle our concerns.
GLA
May be a daft question but does the first batch, required for clinical validation, not have to be manufactured by the contracted manufacturer? Or can we make them in house for this? Presumably therefore if it had to be by the manufacturer, this contract would be RNS’d before the LFD going to clinical trial??
For those investing ‘just’ because of the fantastic ‘point of care COVID antigen saliva test’, partnered with a global multi-billion pound life science company and a distribution agreement with multi-billion pound owners secured... just a little reminder that the affimer regeants recently developed for the test have been shown to block the virus’ interaction with human cells i.e. not just diagnostic, a POTENTIAL THERAPY!!!
RNS dated 15th May, and already seems to be forgotten by some...
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/sars-cov-2-neutralising-affimers-9ajl5dlkzc9apzi.html
The global demand for these two requirements is more urgent and critical than any other product(s) we have seen in our lifetime, that also will likely continue to be so for years to come, until a cure is found. And we could potentially have both. How to put a value on products that bring the world’s economy a revival, pretty much every country and sector...
This was 20p a share 2 months ago, aren’t we all kicking ourselves we didn’t buy in then. IF Avacta does validate and bring both products to market (still a lot of work ahead, certainly with the therapy side), in 6 months time when this has likely flown past £10 a share, will people be saying they’re kicking themselves for not buying in at £1.70?