Member Info for TWatcher

you need to convince wolfy of that

orders are price sensitive, the implication of your statement is that ODX is withholding price sensitive information from the market.

bigjock,
CK has said on many occasions that the expansion of capacity is happening without the need for a fund raise.

However, clearly he needs to tell the market about anything that is price sensitive before he tells you (!), whether that is new orders, TT progress or placing, so if he was going to announce any of those tomorrow, he'd still tell you today the current official company position. Asking such price sensitive questions is pointless and only serves to put him in an embarrassing situation.

they have confirmed NO production. They have confirmed on track for 2M capacity.
At this time, there are NO known orders for them to fulfil. There will definitely be no new orders from the original tender, from which ODX got 250K of production. It is interesting that ODX share of the original order was stated at 175K, and given they had to get at least 25% of orders, it was assumed that the shortfall would be made up in additional orders. In hindsight, the raising of ODXs share from 175K to 250K was a flag that there was reduced expectation of further orders from that tender, so ODX share had to contractually be raised to 25%.

It is also reasonably clear from todays news that UK government is in no hurry at all for antibody tests. If they were, they'd be simply calling off from the existing arrangement with RTC, rather than tendering and having to wait for the tender process to complete. I wonder whether the legal issues being promoted by good lawyer thingy have fed into this decision making ?

ODX does not have any test that relates to sequencing.

"Pullbacks are healthy,"

Don't necessarily disagree with the above, but I've yet to see this pearl of wisdom being rolled out when a share is rising ("hope this rise stops and it pulls back"), only when it falls.

hmmm, premature ?

Things do appear to be aligning...we'll know in around 2 weeks, given the timeline of the tenders that have been highlighted in this thread.

"I disagree. I think the wording around future tenders/contracts, as well as the reference to the other jurisdictions, is a fairly good indication that there will be no further agreement with DHSC"

When you say no more agreements, do you mean no more orders, or simply no more DHSC exclusivity ? It would seem entirely deliberately obstructioness (?) of DHSC to continue to stop RTC from selling to non-DHSC customers until 15th Feb if either case, and yet RNS makes no mention of government allowing such sales, and any such news would definitely be price sensitive.

given the news today that the RTC expects no more confirmed orders from the DHSC under the existing contract, two things spring to mind.
1) Walbrook has been justified in their defence at the time regarding why there was no RNS relating to the "£75M order" that was listed on bidstats. They rightly said it wasn't an order...it turned out that contract was worth 1M units (probably £5M), and all it has done thus far is prohibit RTC for being able to offer the test anywhere else for months.
2) Do we still think that ODX have been knocking out 200K RTC tests a week since Nov ? Why would they be doing so if there are no orders, which we now know is definitely the case. At the very least, surely the test has a limited shelf life ? nevermind the cashflow issues that generates, tying up £Ms in producing a test that is just going into storage ?

This RNs makes no change to "the world is our oyster". That has always been the case post 15th Feb, and remains so, unless RTC signs another exclusive contract. The only definite in the RNS is that the existing contract with DHSC will not result in any further orders.

Good to see ODX turn the intentions stated in prior presentations for an in-house testing lab into reality.

yes

the 1M order was completed on the 8th Jan...seems UK gov had no immediate need for the tests when the order was placed back in Oct.
RNS indicates to me that they do not expect to received any other orders out of that contract, which was for up to 10M tests, with scope to increase to 15M.

consortium will tender for future antibody contracts for uk government.

Continue to make the test.
Working on approval in 27 countries.
USA investigating test versus PCR testing.

"The Company continues to work closely with commercial and academic partners to build the data set(s) around the use-case for the AbC-19(TM) Rapid Test alongside vaccines, and these will be published in due course."

You'd have thought these "datasets" would have been built many months ago, given the well known and often repeated tight association with the AZ vaccine.

Basically, the RNS does not indicate any further RTC orders, and in fact more or less states that no other "call offs" will be made against the existing tender award. It is interesting to note that although that contract is effectively dead, they do not take the opportunity in the RNS to mention that orders for other than DHSC will be permitted post 15th Feb, unless another exclusive contract is signed. You'd have thought that when talking about other territories, that that would have been mentioned.

Generally agree with your sentiment, although thus far they've thrown >£1B at the innova test, which has been cited as being rather inaccurate on here.

I'm not at all surprised. Today, 70 ICU beds in N.I have covid patients, an all time high.

...that is, one assumes someone who has been vaccinated either once or twice will have some antibodies, whereas what is needed in this scenario is a test that quantifies the antibody response, an LFT doesn't do that.

the RTC test doesn't give a "level", it gives a yes/no

Worrying news emerging about the South African variant, where it appears the mutations have allowed the virus to become resistant to antibody neutralisation, meaning that any protection from a prior infection is likely lost.

Testing will be with us for a long time.

Any word of whether the specificity and sensitivity of current antibody / antigen lft tests are valid for it ?

it was the sincerity of your remarks that really made me well up.