RE: Is It BBI?28 Nov 2020 12:57
"So surely the government is just as likely behind the switch to swab as Cytiva."
Fardistanthills: I've also given some thought to interpretation of the latest RNS. The sudden change to swab and how that was communicated just didn't sit right with me. I think the governments hand is definitely in this. As far as I'm aware, Avacta have never differentiated purpose of use for the LFT. I think, thus far, it's been a one size fits all approach. However, they have now suddenly started doing this. Listening to the Rick Body podcast this morning and re-reading the RNS convinces me even more that this initiative has come from govt.
RNS:
Avacta and its partners will continue to develop both sampling methods in parallel in order to bring high performance COVID-19 tests to market quickly to suit a range of use cases.
Rick Body podcast 21:02 in
…there are so many other important use cases.
Hadn't heard this expression "use cases" before, but here it pops up twice...coincidence?
My theory, for what it's worth, is that Al has been told by govt. "We like the test, but we want to standardise on swab sampling" and Al has reluctantly had to shift tack. You can almost sense his reluctance in the video presentation, like a "Didn't really want to do this, but have to" kind of attitude. And, he didn't even mention the change to swab in his comments at the foot of the RNS.
Another clue is, the fact that Avacta have suddenly been able to secure a huge supply of swabs, at a time when these are in huge demand. How so? The government have been ordering bucket loads of these...coincidence?
I don't think there's much wrong with the saliva test, despite Al using the word 'challenging'. I think he said that because he couldn't very well say 'the govt. has asked me to do this'.
In summary, I think we end up with two excellent tests with different "use cases".