Member Info for mowzerrocks

Just wondering how many here have actually decreased their holding today? I've increased mine by about 20k shares... with Sona rebounding (though they were quite down anyway) I would think many will be buying again tomorrow? Appreciate might not get a true representation but here is a link to the trading volume that shows where all the volume was today... (bars on the right are volume. You can see the big big gaps that are due to the MMs just dropping the price. Hopefully this link works.

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/AVCT/YJ1GUoEN-Avacta-Volume-drop-09-Nov-2020/

Seriously - for anyone interested - have a look at the share trades on sharesmagazine. It started about 11:50 - and reached 102/103 by 13:11. whilst a lot of trades there aren't HUGE volumes suggesting games by 'whales' so to speak. This drop was essentially MMs not wanting to buy much at all so they just kept lowering it. in terms of % shares sold... it doesn't look like insane amounts and I'm sure MMs will have a ball selling them off higher tomorrow.

seriously doubt it - T&Cs will be watertight for this kind of situation. However, some goodwill might be forthcoming if you complain. I had serious issues knowing if I had sold or not and subsequent negative shares due to their platform being hammered. Always worth a complaint ...

So had neg shares on two shares on HL. RR. and GDR. They seemed to have sorted the GDR ones and only kept the one that was of the most benefit to me. They haven't sorted the RR. one yet... but I did message them about both issues. I'd be surprised if they don't have a sweep of code go through and fix it. But suspect it might take a while... I suspect they will have to take a hit in some respect so I also sold my HL. shares as I was £2 up per share anyway....

The problem with AIM is that the MMs are the brokers and decide the buy and sell price - very few have direct access to the market. I had a look through the trades on shares magazine and there were very very few trades between 166 and 103 - I'm not sure how they could justify those movements... but I guess it was the only way they could reduce the demand to sell. At the end of the day - they always have a huge spread on these shares... that was to justify the risk of AIM shares... but clearly they brought the price right down too to hoover up and still make profit on that too... worse than the bookies!

Phantom - I completely agree the MMs are the problem - looking through the share trades on shares magazine there were very very few trades between 166 and 103... not many would have been able to sell... BUT I struggled to work out if my stop loss had actioned or not - and it was hard to tell - so i just tried to cancel it and it evenually went through as a cancel. The delays to the accounts being updated with sells and buys is not a problem with the MMs and HL are clearly not managing their IT well. In no circumstances should a client not know what shares they are or where or if their orders have been placed... I'm currently in negative shares on RR.... akin to trading on margin or something and they haven't done any due dilligence on me for that... so how can I be liable! Shocking.

Don’t feel too bad - I was sat right there when it happened - I only managed to sell 20k or about 7% at 166 and then nothing - I bought back at 103/4/5/6/7/8 so I think I have more shares than I started but HL still kind of kerflucked so I have to download the deals and work it out from there. Might need to get drunk first... what a sh! T show ... all for something that may not work fully and needs -80c storage and a whole world to vaccinate... bounce tomorrow?

That is not good at all... but I’m sure that there is a lot to understand about the new strain. There would be some value in the strains being less deadly even if more easily transmitted. You would think that in order to survive that making your host too sick or dead would lessen the viruses chance to survive... just some thoughts.

hey noodle head... why don't you go and invest in crypto - that way you don't have to worry about CEOs houses and wallpaper - only whales pumping and dumping. Right up your street I think.

What I get from this is that Avacta are right to spend time getting this right and there doesn’t seem to be a strict approval system nor are the government going to spend time reading directions. When we get the RNS - it will be big. I do hope that somehow the government don’t find a way to feck it up... CONDOR seems a absolute travesty when it comes to BAMS

Part 3
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) confirmed that the Genie HT machines would be the primary technology deployed to test NHS staff and patients who do not present coronavirus symptoms.

They do so using two methods: the rapid Direct RT-Lamp, where a saliva sample is added straight to the machine after being made safe by heating, and the RNA Lamp, which takes longer to process because the nucleic acid has to be extracted from the sample.

The health secretary, Matt Han****, announced a six-week trial of OptiGene’s tests at the end of May, which he said “could change the way that we control Covid-19 across the country”. The results of the trial, however, have never been made public. A separate study published last month found that it identified only 67% of infections, meaning it missed one in three cases, and advised anyone who tests negative to take a separate follow-up test to verify the result.

OptiGene referred the Guardian to the DHSC, which has been contacted for comment.

Questions have also been raised about a separate rapid saliva test which will be offered to everyone in the community in Liverpool. The public data available on the Innova test is for nose and mouth swabs only, not saliva tests.

The instructions for use say “negative results do not rule out Sars-CoV 2 infection” and should not be used for treatment decisions or “infection control decisions”. The government’s Porton Down laboratory evaluated the test and approved it in August, but only for swab samples and no detailed results have been published.

Johnson earlier told the Commons that the rapid test to be used in Liverpool would be one “that you can use yourself to tell whether or not you are infectious and get the result within 10 to 15 minutes”. The Innova test, however, is for people who already have symptoms and is not approved to be self-read. Any positive case should be confirmed with the gold-standard lab-based PCR swab test.

Experts, including those in Liverpool, are understood to be anxious about the performance of the tests chosen for use in the pilot scheme and to have asked for reassurance from government. There is concern that doubts over the results will undermine public confidence and affect people’s willingness to come forward for testing.

Bill Esterson, the Labour MP for Sefton in Merseyside, asked the government on Thursday to urgently publish the test’s clinical validity data and said: “It’s very worrying if unreliable tests are being used. It’s crucial that the Liverpool mass-testing pilot succeeds.”

Part 2
Local leaders had asked the government for clinical validity data behind the technology, but it is understood this data has not been provided.

The MTEG, which reports to the region’s health chiefs and the Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, revealed their concerns about the Operation Moonshot findings to Martyn Pritchard, the chair of the city region’s testing strategy group on Monday.

In a letter seen by the Guardian, they wrote: “The current available data from the Manchester Pilot shows low sensitivity (46.7%) of the Direct RT-Lamp platform,” which is favoured for use in hospitals because of its ability to produce results in around 20 minutes.

They wrote that “a high proportion of samples collected from infected individuals in a ‘real world’ setting would not be detected” using the technology and added: “MTEG has significant concerns and do not feel the data supported the investment in the large scale roll-out of Direct RT-Lamp saliva testing in any of the proposed clinical settings considered (hospital staff, care staff, community settings) at this time.”

The Greater Manchester experts conclude that “technical limitations of the system were also a cause for concern”, including the lack of internal controls, and that if not addressed “these may pose a significant risk of errors”. They added: “It should be noted that solutions to these issues are not available at this time and are likely to take considerable resource and time to address.

“It is also of concern that the scale of investment needed [at a ‘new department’ level] to deploy this test at a scale that would be useful and sustainable is unlikely to be cost-effective.

“We remain fully committed to wider asymptomatic testing in the health and care sectors as well as in community settings, however we are not convinced that this is the right platform for widespread deployment across GM.” The experts said they would assess the tests again if there were fixes that “materially improve sensitivity”.

The hospital test is made by OptiGene, a small biomedical firm in Horsham, Sussex. The government has paid £323m for 600 of its newly-developed Genie HT machines and 90m testing kits and chemicals. Each machine can reportedly deliver up to 200 tests an hour.

A rapid coronavirus test at the heart of Boris Johnson’s mass-testing strategy missed more than 50% of positive cases in an Operation Moonshot pilot in Greater Manchester, the Guardian can reveal.

The 20-minute tests, on which the government has spent £323m for use on hospital and care home staff with no symptoms, identified only 46.7% of infections during a crucial trial in Manchester and Salford last month.

This means that many of those carrying Covid-19 were wrongly told they were free of the virus, potentially allowing them to infect others.
The test is one of those due to be used in the UK’s first city-wide mass-testing initiative which starts in Liverpool on Friday. It has also been rolled out to a number of other hospitals in England.
Scientists with Greater Manchester’s mass testing expert group (MTEG) raised significant concerns about the accuracy of the OptiGene Direct RT-Lamp tests this week, and said the technology should not be widely used as intended in hospitals or care homes.

The findings pose significant questions about one of the main tests in the government’s mass-screening strategy, which Johnson heralded this week as the UK’s main route back to normality. The prime minister told MPs on Monday that the government was “rolling out testing of all NHS staff as fast as we possibly can” and that it wanted to introduce rapid, regular testing for hospitals, care homes, schools and universities.

The Salford trial was billed as the first step in the Operation Moonshot mass-testing scheme but was drastically scaled back after just six weeks, in part due to concerns about the accuracy of the OptiGene test, the Guardian understands.

Local leaders had asked the government for clinical validity data behind the technology, but it is understood this data has not been provided.

I agree that the isolation element needs addressing. There are different reasons why people don’t want to isolate. I disagree that the government won’t spend money on tests because of non compliance. It would be political disaster. Enough people are scared and it isn’t a black and white issue. Not everyone needs to comply for there to be positive impact.

Extracted from FT article
Contracts
The government has so far signed at least 10 contracts with companies based in the UK, US and China, totalling more than £1bn, for rapid testing technology and logistics, according to publicly available contracts on the EU public procurement site, Ted, and information shared with the non-profit legal firm the Good Law Project.

The FT shared its calculations with the Department of Health, which declined to comment on the contracts, citing commercial sensitivity.

Despite a drive to turbocharge the UK diagnostics industry, the contracts show that the Department of Health spent £138m on millions of lateral flow tests produced by US company Innova, whose tests will be used in the Liverpool pilot.

It has spent more than £80m on two tests made by US companies Abbott and LumiraDX, which is also being offered by the pharmaceuticals retailer Boots, according to the documents. One person close to the procurement process said the government had also spent an unspecified sum on lateral flow tests produced by the Chinese company Zhejiang Orient Gene and the Korean medtech company SD Biosensor.

Another contract published last week shows that the government spent more than £1.35m to fly lateral flow tests from China to the UK, although it did not disclose further details.

“We’ve yet to find a UK-based lateral flow test that’s good enough,” according to a person directly involved in the validation process

The Innova tests, expected to play a main role in the Liverpool trial, were found to have 100 per cent specificity, avoiding false positives, and 96 per cent sensitivity, avoiding false negatives, in clinical trials.

However, the company’s instructions state that the tests can pick up infections from people “who are suspected of Covid-19 by their healthcare provider within the first five days of the onset of symptoms” and that they are designed for use by trained healthcare and laboratory staff.

“The Innova test is not approved for community use,” said Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham university. “This is dangerous and not how science should proceed.”

One person close to the validation process said that some field studies of the tests in community settings, such as universities, had produced poorer results than others, indicating the need for robust training.

The different testing technologies
The government has mostly focused its investment on four testing technologies.

While the gold-standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are highly accurate, they are time consuming to process and require lab equipment and clinical expertise to analyse. They allow scientists to take a sample containing a very small amount of virus RNA, convert it to DNA, and multiply it so it can be detected.

Well I do think it would news worthy BUT I’m also not seeing other announcements from other LFT developers either. No one is putting their hand up so it could be that all hands are tied. It might not be as black and white as many posters would like. I think we are just stuck with no information but the share price will be fairly stable until further news or confirmation

So taking a step back from all the mud slinging and looking at situation from large organisation (government) point of view... we all know in large organisations often one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. We know that CONDOR is woefully underfunded and has clearly had manpower and/or sample issues since the summer. AS would not have RNS'd the LSTM as the place to analyse the LFT had CONDOR been a productive path. He knew samples were a problem in the summer and had hoped to get some from other areas of the globe through LSTM. I think we would know via RNS that the product had been validated, if it had been done. I could possibly see this new Liverpool testing program as a potential path for our LFT if we had a government that liked to think outside the box and there was a method of collecting the data behind the testing... but that is totally unproven at this point and imo unlikely. I do think it will be Avacta one day soon but I just have serious doubts about the governments approach and can completely see the gov procurement department ordering kits from China to get the ball rolling (even if not being used with i's and t's being dotted and crossed). We know Bojo is under a huge amount of pressure to progress testing, but I don't think it is us (as per PL's right butt cheek?) I do think it will be us in the next 4 weeks, assuming the government manage to pull their finger out and unblock the bottlenecks ... David Wilson was fairly relexed in his presentation and had to signs of being uncomfortable and I do seriously doubt that Cytiva or Avacta would have put their resource into those webinars if the situation was not yet complete in terms of input from Cytiva or Avacta. That leaves the question about the Tech Transfer... I do wonder if there might be a bottle neck at the manufacturers? Lack of adequate levels of staff with the required skill sets? Or yes an NDA is possible but I am not sure that wouldinclude details about the product development unless the government wants to secure all supply. On the other hand, as a CEO, I'm not sure I would want to sign an NDA on those conditions if the governement hadn't provided some sort of underwriting of the risk. A lot of questions and it has been awfully quiet and frustrating for investors.

I've seen it explained that a bigger spread discourages buys/sells - so when MMs have over bought or over sold shares, they do it to slow down trading and rebalance - but also the spread is an algorythm from LSE - so it can lag.

Chengdo subtle hints haha - honestly I am quite surprised that no PI asked ‘when MOON?’ Or perhaps they have and David will reply via email. Do share with the rest of us if David gives a date to put our lambo orders in.

Oh lord - some PIs are being a bit blatant and wasting the Q&A time! - He can't answer specifics to our LFT ... and now we have lost David...