The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
I can just imagine you average Daily Mail reader utterly incandescent with rage at the thought of being required to do something outside of their normal daily routine. Despite the fact that we’ve been living in this global pandemic for over a year now and vaccines can only do so much to open the economy.
Luckily, they are not the ones shaping the world. They wouldn’t be sitting in the conservatory smashing comments out if they were!
Here he is with the Health Sec (old interview)
https://youtu.be/kLI3wTqizVc
Looks at Bollinger, looks at fridge... back to Bollinger... back to fridge..
Nah. It stays where it is. Until the Sunday papers, Marr etc start dropping our name. Patience and cautious optimism.
Looks back at Bolly...
We can interrogate the figures from the RNS as much as we want - but it’s all speculation, or in my case, just misunderstanding.
Further S&S figures will be revealed in due course from subsequent evaluation ‘in the field’. But that’s now massively de-risked on the initial data. Whichever way you look at / interpret it!
Yeah. So I’m going to stop trying to interpret that RNS now! I suspect you’re right. While nobody expects a full write up of the process, it remains slightly unclear to me. Probably cos I’m a bit fik...
I hadn’t considered that but suspect you’re probably right. There I was hoping the test was picking up a load of 26 Ct samples. Going off the RNS it’s not exactly clear. Armchair analysing isn’t for everyone clearly!
I think the point to take away here is not that half the samples were taken in the 22-26 Cycle threshold range but that half of them were AT the 26 Ct range.
Confused me a few days ago bit the point is that they had to get to 26 Ct to detect the virus in half of the samples we correctly identified. Which seems to be the agreed infectious level.
It follows the test should be able to detect lower Ct levels easily.
I believe these early clinical tests were conducted with spiked samples of known quantity. All were 26 Ct or below with half in the 22-26 Ct range. I’m slightly confused then what value the others were at as this implies the other half were below 22 Ct. If this isn’t a misprint, that’s quite an astonishing level of accuracy, no?
I think it should read half the tests were in the 22-25 Ct, which would mean the remainder were exactly 26 Ct.
Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this a very subtle clue that the test is more accurate than initial inspection? Any thoughts..?
The politicians and medical journals starting to play our tune. LFTs and regular, mass testing is the way to open the economy again and keep it open with more and more mutations emerging. Preaching to the converted, I’m sure.