Member Info for PL75

Ok. Then we’re all psssing in the wind as well as farting in it. If we’re all in agreement that no one other than those busy working in the lab this weekend have any kind of clue, then my research is complete.

Good luck all especially Sir Al. Strap in, it’s going to be one hell of a ride

That sounds very useful sleepydave, wonder if his mounted lordship has got anything to say on that or is he busy deciding on the best terminology for his next uneducated analogy

Unfortunately that patronising clown has only been trying to explain the basic concepts I fully understand, he’s not managed to answer any of the questions that might add value.

Chengdo has been asking the same question, have we got any real life examples i.e. not in a lab, not in a PHd paper, of affimers being used in an LFD? Prattling on about beans and farts isn’t beneficial.

Yes, you’re quite the expert. Let’s have a look at your post at 00:06. It’s would have quicker to have just said ‘I don't know’. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Woodaldo, I’ve not been taken in by hype, I asked to see some journals to assist in research, calm down. An 80% test has added 6 billion to Quidel’s market cap. Here’s an example posted on a thread on the avct board:

Test 100,000. Accrual prevalence is 1% so 1000 people genuinely have it. You will 80% genuine cases so 800. You will also have an additional 5% false positives 5000 people. And their families will also isolate.. You will miss 200 people - false negatives. They remain at large - if R=3 then they will infect 600 others

An 80% test has reduced the r value from 3 to 0.6. A 90% test would reduce it to 0.3. You don’t think that’s beneficial? It’s not about threatening ncyt and having a winner and loser, not everyone thinks in binary.

I’m not sure you’re capable of participating in a debate either which is shame. You’re hell bent on patronising, pedantry, ignorant to any other views and your analogy doesn’t work. I’m trying to have a debate/ do some research on the tech we’re all sat currently only HOPING works. Not an unreasonable thing to do.

Dear me, this board, clowns everywhere. Do some research on my posting history if you’d like to further understand my motives.

I’ll leave you to get back on to your high horse...

At last, intellectual debate we’ve been waiting for. What if your ability to detect a fart works perfectly in a lab, but when you head in to the real world someone guffs a real stinker and you’re stood upwind?

I’ve just been reading this... http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/19759/1/Zoe%20Jackson%20SMCB%202017.pdf
Read from page 169 of the pdf / page 154 of the thesis.

ST, doesn’t this suggest we’re pioneering with Cyvita?

Thanks ST, appreciate the research

Yes, let’s all have 95%+ blind faith rather than looking for previous real world examples. Top science there. If there aren’t any, then Avacta / Cyvita are truly pioneering, which may go to explain why our market cap is still so low.

Boo hoo stanman. Any chance of you pedants coming down off your high horses? Bottom line is that at some point a % figure will be published and it won’t be 100% for accuracy/sensitivity/whatever your favourite term is today.

For now, the only reference I have are the 2 Covid antigen tests that are out there in the real world, one has been ridiculed due to its low sensitivity %, the other is 80%, has approval and has added billions to the company’s market value. That’s why my target would be 80%+.

To be clear, I’m expecting 100% specificity, 80% sensitivity/LOD

It probably is 95%+ in a lab, I’m expecting 80%+ in the real world versus properly taken swab PCR tests. Still a very good result.

I think anything over 80% will help significantly reduce the r value, anything over 90% and we’ll be flying. 95% would be unbelievable.

Even an 80% LOD outperforms swab testing due to inaccurate swabs. Over 80% will help reduce the r value such that we can move to level 3 or 2 on the govt Nando’s scale. At that point, track and trace will become effective and it will possible to get it firmly under control

Agreed, if you put together the posts here, you can imagine our saliva based test outperforming 80%. It won’t be near 100%, but as it can be used every day by front line staff (if not everyone regularly) we’ll still be capturing anyone infected much sooner, including the asymptomatic, and will succeed in greatly reducing the R value

I’ve been thinking (and posting) this for weeks, the 100% accurate PCR tests are only as good as the swab. Our 80%+ (hopefully) LFD will outperform current testing.

RD, in your example we’ve gone from a position of 1000 infecting 3000 to only infecting 300, an r of 0.3. A superb result. This perfectly illustrates my original point, our test does need to be near to 100% to have a huge impact.

Obviously the closer the better, our current best competition (albeit swab based) has achieved 80%, received FDA approval and added 6 billion to their market cap.

Thanks for all that ST. If I’ve understood it correctly I’ll need to shove the LFD up my backside and then 2 days later pop it in my mouth? I don’t think they’ve thought this through.

As for your worry, it seems to be legitimate... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/weird-hell-professor-advent-calendar-covid-19-symptoms-paul-garner

We could have a huge number of people stuck in airports trying to go on holiday for months. People have been watching the film Contagion again when we should have been watching The Terminal.

Good old wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit

This sounds like pure joy! Go on, indulge yourself