Member Info for Sangijuelas1

On the Innova product specification and instructions sheet it says that one of the limitations is that monoclonal antibodies may fail to detect viruses that have undergone minor amino acid changes in the binding target region.

Delta has 2 amino acids missing as well as the E156G spike protein mutations. These changes are what has led Delta to evade antibodies and hence reduced the efficacy of vaccines.

So if this is the case Innova may be detecting even less cases than previously.

Clearly more evidence is needed to confirm Innova detects Delta

Cancel that about Innova I think. It is nucleocapsid Antigen not spike protein base

This article mentions potential issues with using the spike protein as the base.

Michaelis says: “I don’t think PCR will ever be an issue, because with PCR you pick the most conserved areas of the genome of a virus. You don’t go for something like the spike region which binds to receptors because that will change, as this is where antibodies will bind, but something that is conserved. The current PCR that we have doesn’t even discriminate between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, because so much is conserved between the two viruses that they are 80% the same.”

LFTs are not as accurate as PCRs, and don’t work in quite the same way. An LFT for Covid-19 works similarly to a pregnancy test, with a liquid sample coming into contact with an absorbent pad fitted with components which react to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even so, experts believe it is again unlikely that these tests will be thwarted by new viral variants.

“Most [LFTs] are actually based on the nucleocapsid protein,” says Michaelis. “It’s much more stable than the spike protein. So again, the risk is not that big.”

https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/covid-19-variant-tests/

Or the Roche one

I don't think any studies have been done in to Delta detection. Seems like a case of lazy assumptions and muddling through whilst hoping for the best.

Delta has 3 mutations on the spike protein, which would be a potential cause of reagents in tests not binding effectively enough. Innova binds on the spike.

AS said this in March RNS
"Since the Affimer reagents we use in Avacta's range of SARS-CoV-2 tests do not bind in the region of the spike protein where the dominant mutations appear, we do not anticipate that the performance of the tests will be affected."

I honestly think that cases are going undetected and now about 3 quarters of cases that are detected are with LFTs rather than PCR.

Maybe Innova was the one that detected half the cases as AffiDX?

Yeah I posted that link last week but not so sure now.

I think Pigster is referring to the Innova test.

I haven't found anything either but I am seeing more anecdotal evidence on Twitter etc of people saying they had negative LFTs but then tested positive when they got symptoms and had pcr.

Andrew Marr was negative on 2 LFTs

Would be really good to filter and not give the bot the attention it craves

I have noticed how some long dormant LSE accounts seem to have been magically reactivated by posters attacking shares. Someone must have found a way to hack LSE and get access to the accounts.

Also perpetuating the myth that Covid doesn't affect children

https://www.longcovidkids.org/

This link is to a list of testing providers that are eligible for managing workplace testing where businesses want to outsource the function

Let's hope Calibre are getting onto these people

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997519/covid-private-testing-providers-general-testing-290621.csv/preview

Ray I realise that £7 probably sounds like a lot of money to someone in your circumstances but when it comes to organisations in health and social care that want to protect their reputation and ensure that they don't suffer covid outbreaks it's pocket money.

In addition to nursing homes, dental surgeries, private health care practices and private contractors caring for children and vulnerable adults you can add large organisations like banks or leisure clubs that just need to get a nurse with minimal qualifications to oversee the test being administered by the person taking it.

Yeah that bit on AB mimetic competition looks really good and I will be studying in a bit more detail later

https://bioservuk.com/rapid-tests/

They provide research for investors specialised in small and mid cap healthcare companies.

Before the Mifid II regulation brokers would provide research to fund managers on small cap stocks and bundle up the charge in the overall fee that would be passed on to clients.

Thanks to Mifid this is no longer possible and brokers have to bill separately for research notes, which is something fund managers have to make clear to clients.

The result has been brokers have effectively stopped providing research on small cap stocks and if companies want to get noticed by fund managers in the UK they have to pay for the research notes themselves.

One of the reasons why 4D listed on Nasdaq as they have now had 2 or 3 notes from US brokers

From the same RNS that you quoted from

"Since the Affimer reagents we use in Avacta's range of SARS-CoV-2 tests do not bind in the region of the spike protein where the dominant mutations appear, we do not anticipate that the performance of the tests will be affected" .

You are wrong Greedo, Monk is right.

AS has stated that a new affimer would need to go through CV again.

The Impatient decided to transfer their wealth to the Patient by selling their shares.

Yeah it's a bit weird someone opening an LSE account just to tell everyone what a terrible company it is.

Most people "working in Cambridge for biotechs" would be a bit busy to bother doing that.

But both Banner and Essex man seem to have activated long dormant LSE accounts to post negative comments on a variety of shares without being invested in them.

Make of that what you will. I for one am going to filter them.