Member Info for RegulatorUK

"Would you want to be the 10% where it didnt work and to have no idea - sounds like Russian Roulette to me. And as I say that 10% could be a larger number with other vaccines"

That's not how these sort of vaccination programmes work...

"Although i think what you say is true Regulator - part of the job of the CEO is communication - there are probably 10 questions at most being asked on this BB in numerous different ways. A simple Investor update and Q&A responding to the concerns would save an awful lot of angst on this site and save dealing with numerous emails answering similar questions - it MAY also help the SP.
At a guess id say doing this once correctly would take an hour or so - perhaps time well spent?"

Problem is, the fact that the same questions are being asked in multiple ways demonstrates that different people are looking for different answers to the same questions. No matter what ODX came up with, it wouldn't satisfy everyone and we'd still have people thinking their questions are more important than allowing the exec team to get on with the job of delivering.

1. That's not his 'take home'
2. It contains few actual facts - it's primarily speculation.

Did you have a point in posting that or are you just trolling?

"If you're going to write to the CEO , at least ask a gawd damn question."

Even better, stop wasting his time with silly emails and let him get on with running the business...

The BMJ has conflated things and got it arse about face. We’ve already done the ‘What does the £75m contract cover?’ bit to death...

“ The only other thing that has changed Simon is that I've decided to mail the Guardian a Turd tomorrow - lucky tonight's curry night! Who's with me?‘

Just make sure you use a leak proof Jiffy bag...

“ I'm not sure how that extrapolates to a finger prick test. You do everything, but hand it over and wait 15 minutes to be read ?‘

In the Ulster test, the ‘public’ did all the stages but under ‘supervision’. I assume, with the exception of the PHE/ONS tests, that’ll be how it will be used. For the PHE/ONS studies, I expect everything will be done at home and then returned.

"So is "widespread public use", "self-use" ? If it is, then the unless they are been clever with words, they do not intend it for self-use."

The government asked for the test to be assessed for self-use. That's why it was subject to the additional University of Ulster testing.

I think people assumed the 'self-test' = widespread use/available OTC. I don't think that is the case (and I note I've said this several times in recent weeks) and what is being referred to is supervised 'self-use'.

Think what happens now if you go to some of the test sites. You are handed a test pack, you take the swab, put it back into the packaging, label it, etc. and then hand it in. You don't have a nurse/doctor showing the swab down your throat and up your nose - it is self administered, ostensibly under supervision. The same thing will happen with the antibody test.

And the other use will be for PHE/ONS surveillance studies, which will be self-administered at home. But arguably not "widespread public use" as we're talking thousands rather than millions...

The issue we have is that access to the UK-RTC test is controlled by the DHSC. They pushed it into approval for self-test use without making it clear what they meant by 'self-use', which has led to some people thinking its going to be available OTC for Joe Public to use at home.

"https://twitter.com/Belcourtoi/status/1326920142354329601?s=20"

No quite correct. The PHE assessment was being used as part of the MHRA approvals process.

Once an LFT is CE marked in line with the Regulations no further validation is required for professional POC use.

"Jolyon Maughan? The Kimono wearing fox basher."

Oi! No need to have a go at Jo. He's a good egg over all... I just happen to think he's wrong in this case.

"They have to, it is a price sensitive information which resulted in 20% drop in the company's Mcap earlier today"

So what price sensitive information is in the Abingdon Healthcare statement then?

"So the new market is professional testing and surveillance ?"

The market always was. I think some people have misunderstood the reference to 'self-use'. This has primarily been designed for professional or supervised POC use.

As I've said on a number of occasions, this wasn't intended as an OTC test for everyone.

Abingdon is not currently exchange traded so RNS is required.

ODX may publish an RNS 'noting' Abingdon's statement but it doesn't actually have to.

"This stat is completely wrong. Just because the vaccine is 90% effective, it does not mean the other 10% die.

You need to look at the infection fatality rate, which considers how many people infected will die.
Overall that is about 1%.
So for 10% the vaccine doesn’t work, 0.1% would die"

The mortality rate is something of a red herring.

In this second wave, we are seeing fewer people progressing to ITU and dying. That's because the treatment regimes for Covid19 are improving - particularly in severe cases.

What we are seeing is an increase in the number of people hospitalised , requiring long term interventions but not necessarily progressing to ITU stage. This means that our ITU capacity is holding up in many areas - but the wider bed capacity is strained.

What will be key going forward is not the mortality rate but the effect of Covid19 on the morbidity rate. We are only just beginning to understand the effects of long Covid.

And there are all sorts of associated long term impacts to consider...

" I wonder why are the people taking the case going for the contract for RTC, and not much juicer contracts in the same realm that happened on the same basis."

They are.

As I said earlier, whilst generally a supporter of the Good Law Project, who have done an immense amount to uncover government fraud and corruption, I think they've got it wrong in this case. I'm not sure that the judicial review will get anywhere on the evidence adduced to date. which appears to be heavily linked to articles from one paper, based on the opinions of one discredited statistician.

Don't feel you have to hang around...

Sorry - Bury, not Burnley.

"Many articles printed in the BMJ are for entertainment (if you are into medical related entertainment), and their appraisals of real science often misses the mark."

Two of my partner's medical student colleagues were responsible for quite a famous BMJ article... on occult fecal blood and consumption of black pudding in Burnley. https://www.bmj.com/content/325/7378/1444

The RT003 troll filtered...