Member Info for scardey_cat

Yes, Wiggly, I did think afterwards I should have added ‘...and the late, mystery entry, Moderna’ to my post - mystery being that we don’t yet know what they’re doing (or, have done?) with our affimers. Will have to read up on LG Chem deal. Don’t know much about that one. Blimey, the list goes on.

Strange to think after all the focus on LFT, BAMS could actually turn out to be the big winner here. What a luxury to have two such horses in the race. And coming up from the rear...AVA6000, closely followed Daewoong gene therapy! Has there ever been, or will there ever be, a more exciting / interesting company to be invested in. Staggering really.

Not an expert, but I just feel that Omega are in a great position to exploit the current and ongoing situation regarding the need for LFT. They have something that's going to be in extremely high demand for the foreseeable. That is, LFT manufacturing capacity. Reading between the lines, they have the flexibility to direct this capacity in any number of lucrative directions. Below, I've described just one such option.

I’m just going to throw this out there. The Govt already effectively have a reserve on a large portion of Omega’s manufacturing capacity via the RTC ABC-19 call-off framework for 15 million LFT antibody tests up to 27th December (of which, Omega will manufacture a minimum of 25%). Omega’s capacity going forward will be 2.5 million tests per week. This deal is subject to ABC-19 MHRA approval, which has been somewhat frustratingly / mysteriously delayed.

Let’s assume the Govt are really smart (big assumption, I know). They’re not yet quite certain what demand they’ll have for LFT antigen vs. LFT antibody. They also know there is a finite production capacity in this country for LFT tests generally. So, they ask Omega how easy it would be to divert production to Avacta’s antigen LFT, should the circumstances require it. Omega says “Easy enough, but we’d need to do a Tech Transfer, and that would take time and cost money”. Govt says “Ok, get on with TT, we’ll pay for it”. Now, I think that would be subject to NDA, since, not only would it materially affect both Avacta’s and Omega’s share price, more importantly, you can see the Govt not wanting it to be a widely known policy. This would make sense for Omega, since (correct me if I’m wrong) you would expect that Avacta are further along with it’s own LFT validation/approval process than Mologic are with theirs. Also, we know the two companies have been in discussions in recent months and we can suppose the Govt have a close relationship with both of them, not to mention the links to Abingdon that both firms have. (In fact, is the above the ‘Abingdon leak’?).

Are the Government that smart? Time will tell. It’s the perfect scenario for me…I’m invested in both, as I suspect many others are here too.

poundcake: Funny you should mention scaleup. Have been thinking about that myself this morning.

I’m just going to throw this out there. The Govt already effectively have a reserve on a large portion of Omega’s manufacturing capacity via the RTC ABC-19 call-off framework for 15 million LFT antibody tests up to 27th December (of which, Omega will manufacture a minimum of 25%). Omega’s capacity going forward will be 2.5 million tests per week. This deal is subject to ABC-19 MHRA approval, which has been somewhat frustratingly / mysteriously delayed.

Let’s assume the Govt are really smart (big assumption, I know). They’re not yet quite certain what demand they’ll have for LFT antigen vs. LFT antibody. They also know there is a finite production capacity in this country for LFT tests generally. So, they ask Omega how easy it would be to divert production to Avacta’s antigen LFT, should the circumstances require it. Omega says “Easy enough, but we’d need to do a Tech Transfer, and that would take time and cost money”. Govt says “Ok, get on with TT, we’ll pay for it”. Now, I think that would be subject to NDA, since, not only would it materially affect both Avacta’s and Omega’s share price, more importantly, you can see the Govt not wanting it to be a widely known policy. This would make sense for Omega, since (correct me if I’m wrong) you would expect that Avacta are further along with it’s own LFT validation/approval process than Mologic are with theirs. Also, we know the two companies have been in discussions in recent months and we can suppose the Govt have a close relationship with both of them, not to mention the links to Abingdon that both firms have. (In fact, is the above the ‘Abingdon leak’?).

Are the Government that smart? Time will tell. It’s the perfect scenario for me…I’m invested in both, as I suspect many others are here too.

Good info, thanks AgentB.
Actually, it wasn't me wondering, it was Wishy, who'd obviously asked Sir Al the question on numerous occasions, but Al was obviously not forthcoming. So, in desperation, he turned to a knowledgeable poster instead.

Energyshares / amateur. invest...you're funny.
Who needs Netflix in lockdown, when you've got this chat board instead!
Great stuff...

Wisheyedbortum: You posted this in September:

"Would some knowledgeable poster please explain why, instead of spitting on it, you don't just pop the end in your mouth for a few seconds and swill your saliva round it? If a lollypop will fit, I'm sure a test strip will."

I take it you weren't discussing LFT with Alistair over dinner, since I suspect he would have more knowledge than your 'knowledgeable poster'. Just saying...

Also in that paper, analysis from the NY based pediatrician, explains how Pfizers preliminary results shows that statistically you have to vaccinate 256 people to prevent ONE covid infection. It follows that you have to vaccinate over 5 million people to prevent 20,000 covid infections (the current DAILY UK infection rate). So, a lot of vaccinating required to significantly reduce the spread. That's going to take quite some time.

Interesting read LiveLongnProsper. It's just occurred to me as a result of reading that BMJ paper that people will really need testing for Covid prior to vaccination, since it's quite possible that an mRNA vaccine could exasperate the disease in positive / asymptomatic people. Pfizer will no doubt not have tested this vaccine on asymptomatic carriers, so will have no idea of the effect the vaccine will have on this group. It would be pretty irresponsible of the govt. to vaccinate people without checking their Covid status. So, a quick LFT test prior to vaccination, might be the answer to this.

The following paragraph from the paper suggests the possibility of this exasperating effect:

"Severe/fatal cases of COVID-19 are associated with immune hyperactivation and excessive cytokine release, leading to multiorgan failure. A broad range of mechanisms (with a final common pathway) appear to be involved. However, it has been suggested that molecular mimicry may contribute to this problem, with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins cross-reacting with structurally similar host heptapeptide protein sequences (for example, in interleukin 7 and alveolar surfactant proteins), and raising an acute (auto)immune response against them. Autoinflammatory dysregulation in genetically susceptible individuals, and other autoimmune mechanisms such as epitope spreading and bystander activation, might also contribute to acute but also chronic autoimmunity during and after COVID-19."

WillHawk, you've got to be kidding. It's the most unfunny thing I've ever read. It would be tragic if you encouraged chrisbak to give up his day job.

Poland finds COVID-19 cases among mink farm workers

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland has found 18 cases of coronavirus among mink farm workers as it continues tests among the animals, but does not believe the workers were infected by the animals, sanitary and veterinary authorities said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-poland-mink-idUSKBN2801A2?taid=5fb7d41ff7584a0001ce7b2c&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Great point portswigger. I have been thinking about that over this last week, looking at the bigger macro picture, rather than the immediate share price. These diagnostics company's are going to be very valuable assets in the coming months and years. The enormous impact this pandemic has had on the worldwide economy guarantees that.

Neutronic: There is a difference between the chances of an RNS 'ON' a particular day and the chances 'BY' a particular day. My first table showed the chances ON a particular day (which is where you are correct), the final table showed BY a particular day. Anyway, as much as I love the subject (Mathematics), I'm sure the guys are bored to death of this thread and my brains hurting, so will just leave you to ponder the difference. Cheers

Good point AfamaMan. The table assumes only one RNS will be issued between now and 31 Dec. So, I'll put this final effort out there. The chances of any single RNS being issued BY a certain date, assuming one, two, or three RNS's by 31 Dec are:
(n.b. first column assumes one RNS between now and year end, second column assumes two, third assumes three - only gone up to 3, because 4 seems a bit greedy).

So, for example, assuming there are 3 RNS's before the year end, there is 55.6% chance of an RNS next week. Yippee!!

23-Nov 3.70 7.41 11.11
24-Nov 7.41 14.81 22.22
25-Nov 11.11 22.22 33.33
26-Nov 14.81 29.63 44.44
27-Nov 18.52 37.04 55.56
30-Nov 22.22 44.44 66.67
01-Dec 25.93 51.85 77.78
02-Dec 29.63 59.26 88.89
03-Dec 33.33 66.67 100.00
04-Dec 37.04 74.07 111.11
07-Dec 40.74 81.48 122.22
08-Dec 44.44 88.89 133.33
09-Dec 48.15 96.30 144.44
10-Dec 51.85 103.70 155.56
11-Dec 55.56 111.11 166.67
14-Dec 59.26 118.52 177.78
15-Dec 62.96 125.93 188.89
16-Dec 66.67 133.33 200.00
17-Dec 70.37 140.74 211.11
18-Dec 74.07 148.15 222.22
21-Dec 77.78 155.56 233.33
22-Dec 81.48 162.96 244.44
23-Dec 85.19 170.37 255.56
24-Dec 88.89 177.78 266.67
29-Dec 92.59 185.19 277.78
30-Dec 96.30 192.59 288.89
31-Dec 100.00 200.00 300.00

RorkesDrift: What weighted approach would you use? Are you suggesting there's more chance of an RNS on a Thursday as opposed to other days of the week? Are you saying there's more chance of an RNS next week, than the following week? I think it has to be assumed that each day has an equal chance, even though I suspect the RNS will be sooner, rather than later. But that's just my intuition and unfortunately that's a very difficult thing to include in any mathematical model :-)

Odds heavily favour 07:00 hours Wyndrum :-) (spreadsheet SAYS)

*when

Christmas day is already discounted.
If anybody knows then AS is having the new carpets delivered, and it happens to be a working day, I can adjust the table accordingly.

Rorkesdrift: It assumes there's an equal chance of an RNS on any particular day.

Actually, there's another way at looking at your proposition Wyndrum.
The first table showed 'what are the chances of an RNS TODAY (for each date), assuming no prior RNS'.
The following table answers the question 'what are the % chances of an RNS by a particular date'.
So, for example, the chances of receiving an RNS by the end of next week are 18.52%.
I'm going to have a lye down now, my head's hurting.

% Chance of RNS by particular date
23-Nov 3.70
24-Nov 7.41
25-Nov 11.11
26-Nov 14.81
27-Nov 18.52
30-Nov 22.22
01-Dec 25.93
02-Dec 29.63
03-Dec 33.33
04-Dec 37.04
07-Dec 40.74
08-Dec 44.44
09-Dec 48.15
10-Dec 51.85
11-Dec 55.56
14-Dec 59.26
15-Dec 62.96
16-Dec 66.67
17-Dec 70.37
18-Dec 74.07
21-Dec 77.78
22-Dec 81.48
23-Dec 85.19
24-Dec 88.89
29-Dec 92.59
30-Dec 96.30
31-Dec 100.00