Member Info for tecbadger

Morning! Was supposed to be getting married today. Confident Omega can play a part in making sure it happens next year.

Gives her another year to come to her senses ;)

Twatcher has nailed it here. They will only make a decision on independent evaluation at Porton down. Won't buy based upon trials organised by the manufacturer

In defence there is another day of March to make the announcement. There is also a ton of work to be done to CE mark and it only takes hiccups in one of many required studies to delay it.

Time will tell but may have been a better strategy to give a longer development timeline and then "overdeliver" by announcing its done in advance of target.

Chrishutch the board has unfortunately been like that for about 6 months now. Down 3p and the company is cr@p, PR is terrible, they are missing the opportunity etc etc.

As a side note people need to understand how difficult it is to change this space its not as simple as devel I ping a test and then selling it. The test needs to be accepted by the medical community and THEN have an entire healthcare pathway setup for it

how are tests ordered? Who pays, what is the pricing model? who conducts the test? how are they transported? how are patients stratified for testing? how are results reported? how are positives reported as a notifiable disease? what are the treatment pathways? How are samples disposed of?

The company itself can coy answer some of these questions. The rest relies on collaboration and input from third parties, the NHS and regulatory bodies all subject to delay.

Having said that it feels like we are on the cusp now. Time for DHSC to make their selection and for HMS Great Britain to ride into summer on a post Easter wave of British LFTs (gagged a bit while writing this paragraph but it feels nationalistic enough to reflect the current administration)

Well I had a few pints for Burnley for triggering the anfield collapse anyway. Although had a miserable time last season when you stuffed Man United at Old Trafford. Was away on business and my only "entertainment" of the evening (fair play though was well deserved)

Too young to know much about the 80s but said colleague used to come in black and blue after that derby in the 2000s!

Didn't know about the Burnley PNE rivalry. Knew about the Blackburn one as my rovers supporting colleague only ever shaved his head when they were playing each other.

Is there any Lancashire team burnley don't have beef with?!

No no that can't be right. You don't get posh shepherd's and certainly not in yaaaarkshire

If nothing else its fantastic to see the test associated with UK Biobank.

It will be a while but published results from the study associated with ABC-19 will be a strong marketing tool in the future.

Nice summary sharebag. This game plays with your head a lot. I had to rationalise it all again to myself yesterday with the endless negativity on the board.

As you say the achievements in the last 12 months may not be reflected in sales figures yet but certainly have been transformational on the ground In terms of facilities and personnel.

The stage is set and its time to perform...

Abingdon advertising a webinar on LinkedIn next week on use of antibody test as a companion test for covid vaccinations.

I'm signed up I'll summarise headlines for the board.

Damn. Sold there in the 80s. Good product with a lot of work to do to bring to market yet. Will definitely have a strong use down the line IMO without being a threat to ODX

Significant change in tone from Colin. A very bullish read.

I do find it a little odd thay the stick is just there clearly visible through a window.

On a Venn diagram of scientists and exhibitionists there is very little crossover.

I think Eazy was being sarcastic yknow. End of the day and weighing up all inputs I'm still going to hold.

We have both an antigen and antibody test on hand now with abingdon health doing all the heavy lifting on defining distribution channels for the antibody. Antigen test available commercially and is still in evaluation at DHSC for inclusion in government contracts.

Omegas contract is to manufacture any test approved by DHSC so we have route to sales with UK government however that pans out.

Hold for me

100% agree you need to listen to the bears as well as the bulls. So long as they can make a reasoned argument of course and arent misdirecting, bashing the stock for no reason or cross ramping another stock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc

I would guess that Omega makes a profit but pays a royalty to Mologic

Jaylarc I have produced numerous reports using PPV and NPV and I agree they are very much more valuable than sens and spec :) in fact if you go back through my reporting history you will see I have actually used them as an indicator of how weak the initial study data both were for mologic and avacta since PPV and NPV take into account both study participant numbers and prevalence of the positive.

I'm a little confused though as you just seek to have repeated some RNS info about the avacta test in the small clinical study rather than rigorously disproved my argument.

Btw I'm very happy with 90% sensitivity at ct less than 25. Please also bear in mind that the ct cutoff is vulnerable to a lot of factors as many attributes can affect the CT value outside of the sample such as age of the analyser, age of the lamp within the analyser, variation of inhibitor concentrations within samples, optical drift of the analysers optical system.

In fact using CT values without a standard curve within the run to calibrate performance is generally frowned upon. I remain surprised people are using CT without this as I have throughout the pandemic.

Jaylarc feel free to counteract me with a different description of the index and reference testing and how sensitivity and specificity are calculated with disparate methodologies.

Please bear in mind that I did actually used to set up clinical evaluations of diagnostics.

To expand in the scenario both results are correct.

The PCR is flagging the sample is positive for sars-cov-2 nucleic acid

The LFT is flagging the sample is negative for active virus.

The problem is we call the PCR result as the "true" result due to PCR being gold standard reference (for very good reasons) and so in the data for the study the LFT result is called as false negative for that sample which harms the sensitivity performance.

The further problem is that we have no better way of clinically evaluating the performance of LFT.

You may ask why the sensitivity was much higher in the smaller clinical study. My hypothesis for that is that the smaller study is way more likely to have a biased population. For example when in a rush to quickly gain some indication of performance they may have recruited obviously symptomatic patients for the positive arm of the trial whereas the bigger study will have had a wider population including asymptomatic testing.

As ever my opinion dyor