@CaptainStanley - you are clearly devious, manipulative and overall - not that bright. So let's just agree to disagree on many things and stop interacting. This will be my last answer directly to you although I will still police your lies and mis-directions as I do the other nefarious characters on here.
I did an intersting piece of work today correlating the posting frequency of certain posters with share price movements and the opening and closeing of short positions on Spread Bet platforms.
Suffice it to say there is a strong correlation and obvious pattern.
Take care all could be a weekend of unmoderated misery ahead of us.
@chengdo4 (thanks for the clarifications I was a little stumped), I have been of the opinion for a while that they hit a problem that they didn't really explain and have been running to catch up. As Lab results they are very promising - not sure I would have published them though. Given that the REAL sensitivity data needs to be determined on live patient samples and that they are swab samples to boot, I would wait before putting out the bunting.
That said - I do think it is very positive for AVCT (in a kind of weird supporting role way). Aside from anything else it is a positive for Cytiva and that is good for Avacta too.
I'll await proper data (from both Sona and Avacta) before commenting further.
@CautiosOptimist - I've very few reservations about whether the Avacta test strip will detect infected patients prior to firsy onset of symptoms. I've been pretty sure it will based on my own research for weeks. I'm just cautioning against getting too caught up in muddled units - especially where plaque assays are included in the derivation as that data is barely quantitative since it fundamentally relies on a qualitative assessment of whether to even include the plate in the numbers.
Maybe last night analogy didn't work so try this one.
It is like trying to compare cars by looking at their 0-60 times vs. their standing quarter mile times. You get some idea but the units don't cross over they just measure similar but not the same things.
RE: Spike protein v virus particle03 Jul 2020 10:31
@Milcait - not sure whether or not detecting detached spike proteins per say heralds another test strip. I saw this as being more of a tool for understanding disease progression so might more reasonably expect it to be a BAMS extension maybe.
If however there is a mutation in the virus then this might be a very important fall back and could make it onto a test strip I suppose.
I mentioned the other day (and I think CautiousOptimist may have actually mentioned it before I did), that a strip specifically for use in a clinical setting (i.e. hospital) might be a possibility. There could I suppose be scope for including the spike only affimers on that strip perhaps if it improved the targeting & sensitivity for the proposed test.
It's a good question - not sure I have a particularly good answer.
@BBN - our posts crossed. The Clinical Validation data set will also become the dataset for qualifying additional manufacturing capacity - no need to keep running clinical validations, just qualify the process for new manufacturers.
If the contract manufacturer was in place in the UK then they would I'm sure have been used. As it is those clinical validation batches can still be made on pilot scale kit in a pilot plant provided that the pilot plant kit is representative of the final process. You will have seen (I think it was Endion) some video f the test strip machines. My view is as long as they are comparable then no problems.
Your question is one of the very few informed ones in days - thanks.