Member Info for RegulatorUK

"remember - ABDX went big into manufacturing ABC-19 , this is massive issue for them - unless they can find a external buyer to offload them too, this is pretty painful for them."

I think that's one issue - the other is that they've tried to be everything to everyone (e.g. product developer, manufacturer and contract development/manufacturing). Such an approach has its strengths - but also some pretty big weaknesses as well.

I think ODX has been smart by concentrating its focus on what it does best - manufacturing. I note that when Mologic chose to move into manufacturing it did so through a standalone company, and did it in such a way as to ensure that they had external support outside the Covid sphere and where they weren't reliant on one contracting scheme for funding that expansion.

Yep.

"If GLP lose can Court award damages and some costs to Abingdon as they are just an interested party ?"

Arguably costs could be awarded - but these would only be reasonable costs. There are no grounds/power for the court to award compensation or damages in these proceedings.

In my view, Abingdon isn't doing itself any favours taking aim at the GLP in the manner that it is. It doesn't help their arguments that a number of points that they are seeking to challenge have effectively been accepted or not challenged by the government legal team in previous hearings. It's not the GLP screwing them over - it's HMG.

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1425372141868961796?s=20

I can confirm it's not me. Mr R has told me no more ODX...

...(so I snaffled some SAR instead).

"This is a week or so old, so apologies if already posted:
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/croatia-becomes-the-first-country-to-set-a-maximum-validity-period-of-covid-19-vaccination-certificates

But it would seem that rules on how long your vaccination is valid for, are already starting to appear."

The Schengenvisainfo site has misconstrued what the Croatian's are saying (which can be found here: https://mup.gov.hr/uzg-covid/english/286212).

If the traveller does not have an EU Digital COVID Certificate then:
- if they have had two jabs they must have a certificate of vaccination that is less than 9 months old
- if they have had only one jab, they can enter for certain periods (depending on which vaccine has been given and when)

This is not about the vaccination itself but the supporting paperwork, if it is not the EU Digital Covid certificate.

"Shockingly low take-up %tage of vaccines in certain states. Delta will be the grim reaper for many of them unfortunately. Sad and totally inevitable."

What's particularly worrying is the numbers of children being hospitalised - including very young children.

We're not out of the woods yet in that respect either...

" lol, tis hardly a big loss now is it. Just a fluctuation. One fk not being given :) And who's angry ;) "

If people think that investors get angry over a £2k paper loss, then they're clearly not investors themselves...

"...Me myself, I invested in the mid sixties and have the patience to wait for my undoubted rewards."

Nearly a 60 year wait... now that's what I call patience!

;-)

I don't have a target price as such, as I see this as a long term investment. I'm down about £12k at the moment but I'm sure that will be recouped and more.

It is frustrating but I have no doubt that things will be kicking off big time soon...

You were suggesting that the government couldn't extend the Innova EUA:

"Do you think the Gov will simply extend having already run out - no that avenue is road blocked "

I was merely pointing out that there was nothing legally stopping them from doing so.

If you think the media and the public are up in arms over the Innova EUA then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. Most of the public know or care little if anything about LFDs and EUAs. The media are too busy with other 'dead cats'.

Some MPs have been vocal (e.g. Philippa Whitford and Neale Hanvey) but leadership around this from the official opposition has been entirely lacking. It's good governance organisations like the GLP and professional organisations like the BMA that are having the biggest impact on government policy and approach.

There are supply chain issues, in part due to further increases in Covid rates in China which has impacted manufacturing and shipping, but that does not necessarily mean that the government has moved away from using Innova in future. I believe that there is a good possibility the Innova EUA will be extended, alongside the introduction of domestically produced LFDs.

"I'm still hodl in odx but after August, I will sell at a lost and never returned!
Have faith but keep your powder dry
Vgla."

Why?

ODX is going to pay dividends (figuratively and literally) in the medium to long term.

Stick to your takeaway spiel, BigZero...

There is no legal restriction to the MHRA/SoS agreeing to extend/renew the EUA for the Innova tests. The relevant regulations only require that the EUA is for a specified period - they do not prohibit renewals and extensions.

The main reason that the government might not further extend the EUA is political - if there is enough of an outcry from MPs, the media, professional bodies, public interest groups, etc. Unfortunately, there isn't really much of a high profile outcry and the government is good at using client journalists to distract attention from the issues.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see a further extension of the Innova EUA, albeit that may be alongside bringing domestic tests into circulation.

Jo Churchill's a junior minister with no real clout and tainted by her association with Hattie Manc0ck. She's probably the least remarkable minister in DHSC... and that's not exactly a stellar cast.

It is worth noting that the Innova recall was issued two months ago (10 June)...

"@Porker - interesting perspective. A claim vs GLP would be interesting but exceptionally difficult to make stick."

Abingdon wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They're also partly shafted by the fact that a number of things they are saying are wrong or object to are matters put in evidence by the government's legal team.

The Abingdon disclosure doesn't do much really. It's an old letter from May, and it's trying in part to counter findings that have already been made by the court. The reality is, these were submissions that should have been (and possibly were) made in the relevant hearings. It appears that if they were, the court has not looked too favourably on those submissions.

There have been a lot of green boxes this morning...