@Jamboy - I'm not calling it any way at the moment other than not 1.8 -2p short term as was being peddled. There is no doubt in not too far into the future this will be many multiples of where it is now but that will come in the post COVID world when international travel is open and businesses are back to operating how we all expect them to.
For right now a lot depends on where the MMs decide to head after they recoup their shares. THAT is probably best informed by where the masses advertise they are willing to be lead.
Honestly guys DYOR and don't fall prey to the crews.
Zaks little crew pumped it with a 1.8p call and all the Twitter bluster and noise here. They have all dumped it and are now probably betting the other way calling a failed 1.8p so expect to see it head down under where they are saying. Classic P&D I don't know why so many get taken in. Look at the accumulation and distribution and the MM spreads - it's the only way to predict these low volume crawling along stocks and even that is dubious.
So did the "Very enthusiastic request from many parties" help ?
"Missed 1.8 target on many occasions"
"Support around 1.37p" - oh oh - just where I told you weeks ago the VWA price for the short sold stock was with the MMs - amazing that.
Of course an informed and up to date understanding of the current trading position would illuminate how that was going and what might happen afterwards. - I'll leave that to Lulu et al.
I'm starting to train my puppy to recognise the smell of Corona infected patients. I expect her to be able to give a 100% reliable result in under 2 seconds.
Training commences as soon as she's had a walk and a brush and feels up to it.
Again not exactly straining at the leash to be released.....
The test is the brainchild of Spektrax founders Eva Rennen and Johan Pieter Verwey. They hope to have a reliable test within a couple of weeks, and to go into production within months, Bright reports. Increasing test capacity is one of the most important conditions for further relaxing the lockdown in the Netherlands.
How does this test work?
Like all coronavirus tests, this one begins with taking a nasal swab. A medical professional will insert a long cotton swab into the nose or throat of a potential patient, and take a sample of the mucus membrane. This is the longest part of the testing process, taking about 30 seconds.
Then, the sample is put on top of a chip, which is then placed into a hand-held scanner. A laser illuminates the sample and the molecules in it start to vibrate. Then the “fingerprint” of the virus becomes clear. This all takes about an additional 10-30 seconds.
How much will it cost?
The makers of the test are aiming for 100% accuracy, and say that so far their results have been promising in that regard. They’re also not yet sure about the pricing of the test, but were quick to say that it wouldn’t be “1 or 2 euros per test”.
not misread at all just selectively quoted...… the piece continues:
Prof Field is an international expert in glycoscience and explains that glycans can help indicate the presence of a virus – and identify that pathogen. His team have developed a prototype test that can detect the influenza virus. While this will be useful come autumn, when people may confuse the symptoms of seasonal flu with those of COVID-19, Prof Field is hopeful the test can be adapted to identify other viruses – including coronavirus.
so not really go go go is it ?
@tkevin - sometimes a pH meter struggles to give you an accurate result when a piece of litmus paper gives you a result immediately. Sometimes simple is best - I'm surprised you haven't grasped that.
O&W - sorry I'm not a clinician but my understanding is that there is a threshold below which a virus can exist in a host without the host becoming sick but once that threshold has been passed symptoms will begin to be obvious. Sometime between when the first virus enters a hosts cell and replicates itself and when the host recovers (or dies) the host themselves starts to spread that virus and that may be long before the host even shows the first signs of illness. You really need a doctor to answer this one I don't feel qualified.
And that is why it's rubbish - you missed the point of the announcement. We already know that they are highly specific because we've been told that over and over. What is needed is not more specificity - it is more sensitivity (ok I've given up it should really be a lower LOD but sensitivity seems to be broadly understood even if it is wrong).
And that is what this morning RNS was saying
sorry if I was overly harsh but the main message is important
@PL75 - using these numbers purely as illustrative and not suggesting they are correct:
When A person becomes symptomatic they have a viral loading of 150,000 units / mil
They are at their most contagious from say 2 day before symptoms manifest to 2 days after.
The after doesn't matter - you know they are spreading it.
So what if one day before they are symptomatic they have a viral loading of 100,000 units / ml if your LOD is 90,000 units/ml you will catch them.
If 2 days before it is 50,000 uits / ml - then you won't catch them. But if you can now detect the dissociated spikes and that lets you get down to an LOD of 30,000 say - then again you are now able to pick up infectious people 2 days before symptoms and limit their ability to spread the disease (and hence reduce that R value they keep on about)
@Stanman - I've just read that article - I think the disconnect is that in designing the analysis to establish the presence of an analyte at a particular level sensitivity is the ability to distinguish between is it there 1% or 2% of a thing present and is the slope of the concentration curve from typically 100 down to the LOD. Medically it seems to just mean is it there or not in the patient. I guess a patient either has or doesn't have Prostate cancer. When discussing the applicability of the test we really need to take care to use the right language which is where I entered this debate a few days ago otherwise it's easy for incorrect extrpollations of ability to be made (either positively or negatively). Thanks for your comment - stay safe yourself
@SeethreeIPO - that would have to depend on how you define things. If you say that a person who has one virus particle on them is infected then no test will detect that so is that negative false ? However if you mean that a person who has a viral loading above the established LOD is tested and tests negative - then no that is just a failure of the test. It is my belief that this advance lowers the LOD meaning that those who would previously have tested negative may now test positive.
@chengdo4 - sorry no Accuracy (and precision) also have specific meanings. Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value - that is not what is gong on here. Think of it like smelling something - can you smell it or can't you - not how much can you smell. This is like standing outside a cake factory - can you smell blueberry muffins ? now we're adding in can you smell chocolate muffins ?
I only see good news here. By targeting dissociated spikes with a second affimer there is a higher probability of being able to detect the virus at an earlier stage before symptoms are seen. So (trying to use the correct language) there will be a lower limit of detection (LOD). Again sensitivity means something very specific (as indeed does specificity) so should not be used in this context. This is not a quantitative assay it is a qualitative test is it there or not - not how much of it is there.