Member Info for PL75

It would be an honour... Twat. Have you reached the £100 holding milestone yet?

The UKs moonshot is to test 4m per day, so we’ll need many substantial partners just to make a dent in that demand. Approx 120m tests per month would put a couple of billion in cold hard cash in Awacta’s P&L. I’d be quite happy with that for starters. We can have a think about helping out the US on Nov 4th once that orange fella has gone :-)

At that point you’d imagine the states could use their defence production act if they wanted a few of our tests over there. If that ever happened all bets are off in terms of the heights the share price could reach.

They’re researching all sorts... This study is about getting the performing arts back.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914628/S0695_Aerosol_and_Droplet_Generation_from_Singing__Wind_Instruments__SWI__and_Performance_Activities.pdf

Check out these slobbery people, someone get them a bib:
A small number of participants (2 out of 25) generated as much aerosol and droplet whilst breathing as others did from singing at the loudest volume.

QuickDraw, the govt appear to now have a laser focus on breaking transmission chains. They’re interested in identifying people during the period that their viral loads are highest. The Beeb article is highlighting something that Michael Mina has been highlighting, that PCR tests are too sensitive. They pick up people way beyond the time when they’re infectious which is equivalent to a false positive for infectivity - despite being true positive for having Covid.

If this thinking is firmed up, then LFDs will be equivalent to PCR testing in terms of sensitivity. I was slightly puzzled by Sir Al’s change in language in the recent RNS, but I’m absolutely convinced that it was based on aligning with that govt document. If we expect to be equivalent to PCR for sensitivity then it comes down to specificity and Sir Al was very specific in highlighting the very specific nature of affimers. I’m sure this is another hurdle that will be easily overcome.

It’s unfortunate that you’ve had to mention CS, he’s clearly an irritating twat. I posted the article here as it’s a huge positive for Awacta and LFDs, I genuinely couldn’t care about the impact on NCYT as I’m not invested there, but I wish you well. My view is that PCR will continue to be needed, it offers additional capacity if nothing else. The results of the clinical validation will be very interesting, especially how they’re presented for sensitivity given the change in govt thinking. Specificity and the false positive rate looks now to be the key number, which will impact the demand for PCR.

Coronavirus: Tests 'could be picking up dead virus' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54000629

Best use an LFD to find people when they’re most infectious then... Were heading in to a perfect storm for maximum success.

Fantastic find and a fantastic document. A brilliant read, all the correct thinking and with the expectation of an LFD between 50% and 70% sensitivity. It’s even better when you put it in context with this snippet from the RNS:

‘The Affimer reagents that we have generated are very specific to SARS-CoV-2 antigen and we are confident of meeting and exceeding the clinical performance requirements for identifying the most infectious people.’

My best guess is that Sir Al had definitely read that document.

Contractual negotiations aren’t straightforward at the best of times. Never mind when you’re (hopefully) talking billions.

The inferior tests can have the £500m. There are billions out there... another £4.5Bn in the UK, the rockerfeller fella recommended $75Bn in the US, best not forget the $750m from Trump for one order that’d cover less than half the US population once. And then there’s the rest of the planet. I think we might just about manage to sell everything we can possibly produce.

Perhaps share your thoughts on the discussion on the NCYT board on the NCYT board?

Nail on the head Pigster, it's another clue that he's talking about awacta.

Fully agree, I think that’s got to be the end state plan AgentB, real time sh.t monitoring will keep any outbreaks firmly under control in combination with LFDs. Given wastewater monitoring is being used (albeit a messy manual version) in an American university and it works effectively I’m sure it’ll become a standard thing eventually. It comes down to timescales. Results from our partner are due by the end of September, possibly sooner, but deploying it will likely be towards the end of the year.

It’s difficult to see what role though. If it needs kit and an operator and in some cases a van then it’s lower throughput and more expensive than sending out LFDs. It’s good that these rapid saliva based tests have arrived, they pave the way beautifully, but at the point you’ve got an LFD you’d only use something else for screening if you desperately need capacity. To be fair, they might need capacity for some time, we do need more partners. Perhaps they’ll only deploy screening tactically in hotspots initially.

They obviously see merit in a national screening programme but can’t leap to it as they don’t have a saliva LFD available. So, conduct a pilot using saliva in the meanwhile, get some PR to warm everyone to the concept.

The pilot for mass testing is exactly that, it’s a pilot and they’re using a test that’s currently available. Simple as that - it’s about the process and results from mass testing, it’s not about the test they’re using. They’ve spoken about a saliva LFD and switching to the better technologies when they become available. Without naming Awacta, which they won’t do as they’ve learned lessons to only reference the here and now, I don’t think you could have had any stronger hints.

None of this should be a surprise and it’s strange that we’ve seen an uplift based on it. It’s obvious. We know we’ll have the best in class and we know it’s designed for mass screening and Sir Al keeps telling us as much in every RNS. Their key focus is now purely on capacity - think about that. He knows the figures, performance for identifying the most infectious is in the bag. Relax, sit back, watch additional partners come on board and wait for the big one.

Correct, the govt are watching their mouths and only talking about validated approved tests - Handjob said that. Not unreasonable. When ours is validated and approved they’ll certainly be talking about it.

Given conversations are happening with Awacta and the govt, I’d hope our sensitivity would be based on samples taken in the infectious period as stated in the RNS. Given the changing landscape and the recognition that this is what is required I suspect that the UK govt are already aligned and other countries will follow suit based on the subsequent success. It would be fantastic to see our results presented alongside the Ct level and communicated appropriately. Spot on Pigster, we don’t want to be measured as 100/100 as it’s too sensitive for the real world.

It’s a bit of an omnishambles. Lots of companies are proclaiming to have apps and the govt are busy faffing on something (iOS/Android) that is more about track and trace than any kind of passport. I personally don’t believe in antibody based passports as it encourages the spread via Covid parties, but a 24/48/72(?) hour passport based on an antigen test would allow some freedoms and normality. Unless there’s some standardisation I can’t see how it could work with individual companies.

Turner & his trusty sidekick Pope always fling some of them in. They love them, cheeky little rampers. They’re getting a bit feisty nowadays too, having a pop at Abbott and their inferior test.

Thanks for posting RK

I’m graciously humbled by your forgiveness, thank you kindly.

I can’t see how you could eliminate quarantine as a single test doesn’t help due to the incubation period. A test at the airport, with a follow up 3 days later and another 3 days after that would at least reduce it to a week with 100% confidence.