Member Info for Marmited

To replace PCR’s... you have a lot of mud in your eyes.. no government in the world is going to replace PCR’s for a test that is far far far worse and that MISSES positive cases. Makes the whole point of testing an expensive complete waste of time.

What government would replace PCR’s with a nLFT that misses 1 in 30 positives?

Not yours though is it...

And they complain this companies £30m valuation showing far greater accuracy is to high!

How much of the £670m valuation is priced into these golden tests that failed not only a saliva test but also missed a positive in a very low number which you believe is irrelevant under non real world conditions?

No, I’m being smug and entertaining these inferior tests pushed onto this BB through no choice of my own yet frequently complained about and ignored. So, let’s talk about it then! It failed its saliva test, was it December? Sounds more greeny than golden!

I don’t want a rod 1.5cm up my nose twice a week.

Did it pass the easier to obtain saliva?

Tempers people.. i haven’t even posted on AVCT!

Yup, the Government is slowly getting to grips on those antigen tests. Did your golden share pass it’s user friendly saliva test or is it going to rely on the more painful nose option?

No, they are just fed up with reading your deliberate disruptive nonsense, pretty much identical to Goldtrig really. When neither of you post it is actually calm and informative.
Hey Goldtrig - thought you might find the info regarding saliva and nasal swabbing useful.
You are welcome!

A self-collected saliva sample is as good at detecting COVID-19 as a nasal swab administered by a health care worker -- without exposing medical staff to the virus while collecting the sample.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201211/saliva-equals-nasal-swab-for-covid-test-accuracy

I think this is great news albeit old. Next gen tests won’t need a rod up the nose and throat.

It will not happen overnight but Braveheart/Paraytec certainly look positioned perfectly time wise to step into the huge void that will be created. 75% of LTF’s tests are absolute cr@p. I would suggest many of the remaining 25% (Antigen for example) fall short of the Governments overarching objective / problem they are trying to resolve, ACCURACY! No Antigen test can capture all infected people. The UK cannot prevent deaths or long term health problems or maintain the economy or education without Platinum grade ACCURACY.

Private COVID-19 testing validation
Published 8 April 2021

To this end the UK government proposes establishing a requirement that all COVID-19 tests placed on the UK market undergo a mandatory validation process. Tests that fail this process would be barred from sale. Retailers, distributors and manufacturers of tests that attempt to sell unvalidated tests would face sanction. This will apply equally to those companies based in the UK and overseas who are importing into the UK.

As the market for private testing grows, it is important that consumers have confidence the COVID-19 detection tests they use give reliable and accurate results. COVID-19 remains a notifiable disease and it is important that all tests attain required performance standards.
It would undermine current public health goals if people used poor quality tests that give them a false sense of security. In the case of a false negative, this could see an infected individual unknowingly spread the virus. Conversely false positives could require business to close and people to isolate unnecessarily.

That is why government is proposing to require all tests to pass a rigorous, transparent and efficient validation, while keeping the process as agile and light touch as possible. This will ensure those tests available on the UK market from UK and overseas manufacturers are of the same quality as those purchased by the government for the NHS. As the current market drivers will act too slowly to address the immediate issue caused by COVID-19, government intervention into the market is required. This will ensure tests improve to meet our urgent health risks much more quickly. This regulatory approach will be specific for COVID-19 tests given the urgency of the intervention. It is setting a template for future regulation, however we will use learning from this regulatory regime to help us produce a world-leading best practice regulation.

Overarching policy objective

The government is keen to create and grow a private testing market where businesses and members of the public can trust and use the private tests they procure safely. The 2 key objectives are:

to ensure tests’ performance (sensitivity and specificity[footnote 1] can be relied upon by NHS Test and Trace and test users, to facilitate a robust private market

to grow the size of the private sector market, so a greater range of tests are available to individuals and organisations

The problem the government is aiming to solve

Consumers need to know that COVID-19 tests they buy are of satisfactory quality. This requires tests with sensitivity that is high enough to apply in ‘real world’ settings that provide accurate results and avoid spreading the virus.

Driving up standards and removing poor performing tests

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-coronavirus-covid-19-testing-validation/private-covid-19-testing-validation

Dr Jac Dinnes, Senior Researcher in Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Birmingham, an author of the review said: “Our review shows that some antigen tests may be useful in healthcare settings where COVID-19 is suspected in people with symptoms.

“These tests do not appear to perform as well in people who don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Confirming a positive result from a rapid test with a RT-PCR test, particularly where cases of COVID-19 are low, may help avoid unnecessary quarantine.

“All antigen tests will miss some people with infection, so it is important to inform people who receive a negative test result that they may still be infected.

“There is some emerging evidence that the accuracy of the test is affected by who is doing it. Future studies should look at the relationship between the experience of the person administering the test and the sensitivity of the test.

“Future research should also evaluate molecular tests in the settings in which they are intended to be used to clarify their performance in practice.”

Author, Jon Deeks, Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Birmingham added, “It is good to have found evidence that some test brands do meet the minimum 'acceptable' performance standards set by WHO for testing people with symptoms.

“However, they represent only a very small proportion of the commercially available tests. The situation is different for testing people without symptoms, particularly for the use of repeated rapid antigen tests to screen for SARS-CoV-2 infection in school pupils and staff, and hospital and care home workers.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2021/03/covid-lateral-flow-antigen-tests.aspx

Private Covid tests to be subject to quality checks after more than 75pc found insufficient

Government admits few privately-made lateral flow devices are working properly.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/10/private-covid-tests-subject-quality-checks-75pc-found-insufficient/amp/

Quite a few sweaty palms to be had soon. :-) Well done Carl and Paraytec thus far.

Biosensors are at the heart of various rapid and essential diagnostic tools for providing accurate and timely guidance for case identification, prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, and appropriate treatment administration.

Moreover, it is expected that biosensor technologies will be employed not only for rapid coronavirus infection diagnosis in humans but also as a global screening tool for surveillance, prevention, and preparedness in the event of future outbreaks.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843064/

Ugh, PVR...
Anyway, back to my weekend! Enjoy all.

AVCT have not proved anything yet. I have no problem with AVCT producing a cheap DIY kit for the home, but what they have shown is that the test is not good enough to replace PCR so I have no idea why it is being suggested it could.

Zero false negatives.. that is brilliant..commendable! If you are negative you can be rest assured that test will say just that.. but what about the 1 in 32 missed positives.. it isn’t hard to understand is it.

And the one who got away?