Member Info for RorkesDrift

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/25/799404129/how-super-sniffer-dogs-are-helping-detect-disease-around-the-world

If that test works on nasal swabs I think its likely to work on saliva. Issue remains of limit of detection. All else equal LFD probably preferable to a specialist with a hand held device. Note affirmers are used in similar biosensors already I think

Thanks for the reply - sounds like we have two tests on same stick. AS seems a fairly straight bat so take him at his word that this makes a difference to patients or clinicians. No.doubt all will be revealed - it is an upside if anything. On related note the big question is about viral partial concentration in saliva vs. Limit of detection. Without that then its a roll of the dice. My view is the current SP is inline with US biotech (promises and dreams) even without the test. If it fails its not as if we don't have a shed load of other things on-going. Without test then the numbers being suggested probably cannot be supported so will be perceived as a risk - haven't read anything yet that anyone's knows this yet. If they do would be good if could reference the claim. Thanks again for your advice. RD

Hi. I know the RMS said something about using two affirmers as part of same test. I know AS said this would create the best "antigen" test. Does anyone know what specific benefits we have today than we didnt know we had on Friday - a scientic explanation would be great. Worried that its all a bit vague - I understand the facts but not sure of which dots lead to a higher share price other than "well we will sell more stuff". I am invested.

Hi. If it gets a Nasdaq listing I presume that means no more ISA?

Reduces market by 50% but should make return to work more appealing

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/covid-19-found-in-semen-of-infected-men-say-chinese-doctors?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed

Hi. Given the National importance and the costs involved would the War Powers Act be invoked. In Europe windfall tax etc. Alternatively governments just might be grateful innovation is creating a way out and pay up. The private market (businesses rather than retail) will almost have to buy the test - health and safety regulations (what are they good for....). I'm not as bullish as a op - I think testing will be more focused - test around an outbreak and probably less frequently but difficult to imagine a scenario without 100x more testing. So UK - 30M workers x 20% x once per week x 16 weeks x £5 margin = approx £500M gross margin in UK alone. Gear that up to major economies and let's say £5-£10B. My worry is that this info is freely available to big investors so why is SP not higher - what does their modelling,which must be more complete and sophisticated, show to give fair value of £1.13?

Hi. Saliva tests may have more viral material but the tests in the article are still PCR I think. This means they are incredibly sensitive and "amplify" the signal. The Avacta test relies on the material in the sample. CEO suggests still sensitive enough. The big breakthrough is not the sample or the method but that this result is available at point of test very quickly, is low technical all expertise and has lower risk of contamination. Need to see sensitivity data - specificity has been promised to be OK. I can see airlines and employers all opening once a reliable immediate simple test available. Rorkes