Member Info for RegulatorUK

"My only concern is that you are trying to create an issue where it doesn't exist."

Surely not!?!?!

;-)

ABDX is doing itself no favours with this current round of publicity. Taking aim at the GLP was a bad idea (and I note they backtracked quite quickly on that). All they are doing now is drawing attention to their vulnerabilities.

ABDX missed a trick by not being an Interested Party in the early stages of these proceedings, instead relying on the Government legal team - which promptly dumped all over them. I'm not sure who ABDX's legal advisors are on these proceedings, what advice was given and whether it was followed... but what I've seen so far of the effects is shambolic.

ABDX need some serious PR help...

13,888,889 new shared were placed.

TB took 8,000,000 of them. Vivian Hallam took another 833,333 of them. That leaves over 5,000,000 unaccounted for. I'll be interested to see who took those...

"Of Course TB is going to make a killing out of this. Isn’t that the whole point? Or do people think CEOs are not motivated to make money?"

People seem to forget that BRH isn't a manufacturing company or a research organisation - it's an investment company. It's there to make money... and that's exactly what it does.

"Does anyone know where SureScreen tests are being used?"

AIUI primarily for commercial purposes and for some of the travel tests.

"Definitely close now. I've even crossed my Ballz."

Sounds painful...

"There's now a hole on my road where my house used to be .....that,or i am out hunting for a friend's sofa to ly on !"

I can lend you a tent if you want... Mr R says I have too many as it is.

;)

"At the end of the day, you predicted the SP would be much higher by April than it's turned out, yet you seem to believe that everything is going very well. "

Where did I do that?

"The fact that something hasn't met your own expectations (actually done the opposite), and yet you are sitting quite happily suggests to me that you aren't capable of making critical decisions against your own judgement. Good luck."

The reason I'm sitting here quite happily is that I am a long term investor... not some trader trying to flip a few hundred shares for pennies or a shill for a disgraced 'journalist'-cum-pizza maker.

Now into the green bin with you/

"Now put it into context... ????
They released this tweet TWICE - so it's not a one off context-dependent piece.
Why don't you explain what you think that means as it seems I'm a scratch card moron? I don't see how anyone can really interpret the language they used other than the way I have seen it.
"This April, we'll deliver 2m rapid LFTs per week."
So please 'put this into context for me...'
If I'm wrong I'll be more than happy to raise my hands up and admit it - you might learn something from that in fact. Thanks."

I really can't do your thinking and comprehension for you...

"On Feb 17th, Omega tweeted: "This April, we'll deliver 2m rapid LFTs per week."

Now put it into context...

If you can't understand the context in which those words were written then perhaps you should stick to Lottery scratchcards as you would clearly lack capacity to be an informed investor.

"- Is this is a joke? Seriously how about the Twitter activity in Feb and March that twice promised we'd be delivering LFTs by April to the tune of 2m a week. (Communication that in my view is actually illegal as they hadn't even signed the contract when they posted that!!!!)."

Which tweets are those?

I think you're conflating tweets about creating the capacity to deliver up to 2m tests a week with sales of/order for 2m tests a week.

"... Sick of the missed deadlines and pretty much constant red days."

What 'deadlines' are those that you are suggesting have been missed? ODX have been very wary setting deadlines as this is partly outside their control.

"Regulator. Do you think the ABC19 test is dead in the water then?"

No. But I don't think demand will be as high as some anticipated (not just on here but elsewhere). If you look at some of the posts, people were suggesting that there would be antibody testing before vaccination - it didn't happen as it wasn't clinically necessary. There is/will be antibody testing (both quantitative and qualitative) but I think it will primarily remain for research and planning , based on population sampling rather than mass testing. That said, there may be wider spread use of LFD antibody testing in LMI countries, where there is less lab capacity for testing and where vaccine roll out may be more targeted.

“Abingdon intends to make a supplementary score-card product available alongside AbC-19TM, initially for research use only in August, which provides a semi-quantitative result to indicate the strength of antibody response and possibly immunity.”

"A very smart move, I think. The Gov will be wanting such a thing in the run up to ‘booster’ season. Charge them double from now on, and payment up front."

If the COV-Boost trial suggests that boosters work and there are no contra-indications then it will be rolled out. Unless the study shows that they are clinically necessary (which is unlikely), there will be no antibody testing prior to the rollout - it'll just be blanket roll out.

There will be some demand for quantitative antibody testing but I think it will be limited.

"It most likely will continue with the current set-up in place, why change it, everything is working well, so there is no need to introduce risk."

That's just it - the system is changing as it is currently causing significant problems and introducing significant risks.

"If the government thought that by using ODX produced LFT it would save them money and time they'd do it as they always are looking for the cheap option. Somewhere something simply does not add up, that is why I don't have much belief that anything will change anytime soon for ODX, the Government simply do not play fair and it is the shareholders here who are suffering."

The key difference is that at the moment central government is effectively controlling the procurement of LFDs. This is changing for part of the system and the decisions will be taken by the NHS, which has different priorities and is less likely to be influenced by the demands of Tory Party donors (and I should note that IS healthcare providers are already purchasing LFDs outside the current DHSC structure).

"@Reg UK - interesting. But what's to say that this extra demand won't just get satisfied with more Innova and Orient Gene? Sadly."

NHS trusts are being pointed in the direction of the Porton Down approved list - but I know that concerns have been expressed about the lack of domestic suppliers on the list. The people managing this on the ground aren't daft and will be looking for clinical quality and ease of supply.

On Monday, the isolation regime for a number of key groups changes. I'll focus on the ones I know the most about - healthcare workers.

At present hospitals are struggling with staff absences due to isolation following contact with a positive person. Most of these cases relate to community contacts, rather than being work based (as hospital staff are supposed to turn the app off at work). I am aware of two hospitals that have more than 10% of their front line staff off isolating.

On Monday that changes. Isolation will be replaced with daily LFD antigen testing (for 10 days), and staff will be able to continue working as long as the daily LFD is negative.

This will lead to a step change in LFD demand. At present, hospital staff are tested regularly twice a week using LFDs and as required using PCR (if a positive LFD). The changes in isolation rules mean that 2 LFDs a week will increase to 7 a week for a large chunk of staff.

This will be in addition to current levels of demand for tests. And these rule changes are being rolled out to other occupational groups as well...

As a further aside to this, I think the regime/cost for testing also depends on the type of journey you're making/holiday you're taking.

Most of the stories I've read about rip off practices are people flying on package holidays to various summer sun destinations (personally, I'm avoiding airplanes and airports for as long as I can). The key issue is that once these people have got to their destinations, you don't know where they go or who they mix with.

Contrast this with cruises. We were on one a few weeks ago. We were tested at the port prior to departure - this was included in the cruise price. There was random testing undertaken on the ship - again this was included in the price.
We were only allowed off the ship on organised tours and these were tightly controlled. As a result of these controls (where the cruise company knew where you had been all the time), and subject to agreement with the government, there was no need for isolation or testing on our return.

We've got another cruise booked in November, where the shore visit rules may change and the port calls will be in Spain and Portugal. I'll be interested to see if that results in a requirement to test or isolate on return. I have a feeling it won't.

"@Reg - thx for comments in context. Says it all though, that this action was not started well before the test-to-travel (especially) carnage started to mount up. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, yes, but we could all see this coming, right?"

If the government was actually competent and gave a **** about the plebs, it would have fixed the prices that could be charged for the tests. But that would upset the donors...

Another aspect I've heard suggested is that some of the travel firms are directing customers to particular testing companies and getting commission to do so. Obviously the travel firms don't want to give the bad news so they advertise the testing packages as 'starting from', advertising the lowest possible price, so as not put off potential cumstomers.

The CMA has processes it has to follow which include allowing those it is investigating time to respond, failing which it would be susceptible to judicial review, which would undermine the validity of its investigation and report. Reporting within a month is very rapid by CMA standards (don't forget Javid only asked them to look into this at the end of last week).

If the government was *really* that concerned, rather than playing to the media, it could act immediately and suspend the authorisations to provide the tests for those companies who are acting inappropriately. But that might pi*s off a few Tory party donors...