Member Info for TWatcher

"Twatcher shared a doctored report from Richard Tice which undermined the stock. That's all there is to it. Yeah I am rude to overt racists. They are rude to me."

You do realise that repeating the same falsehood doesn't change it from being wrong ?
MBA you say...I've got an 'ology

Indeed

"They were never intended for, and have never been issued for widespread public use and it is misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory to purposefully ignore this fact in the report,"

Actually, you need to read the context of that quote. It was prefaced by talk about the 1M tests that the government purchased. Taken together, the paragraph was stating that the 1M purchased were not intended and were never issued for widespread public use.

it's like deja vue all over again.

The first vaccine announcement caused a big drop that was mostly countered by Ciga and the Vaccine=antibody test post.
The second vaccine announcement caused a drop, but less dramatic, and it recovered well, and in fact went +ve for a while.
whether this pattern continues, or people look passed the headline and see the inference for antibody tests such that a vaccine announcement is +ve for ODX, who knows. It's called kneejerk for a reason.

anyone need a shovel ?

"I was on the phone which is why I didn't share the link. "
Couldn't wait huh to hang up huh

"So as the report from Liverpool Echo shows the data you shared (including an excerpt from a tweet shared by the notorious liar, Richard Tice, UKIP) "

I did not post or share any tweet, it was posted by a user of the name parislse, a premium user who has been registered here for over 6 years, and the post today, according to LSE was the first post by that user on ODX in the last 30 days, and I don't recall that user posting here at all priot to that. Appears that user also posted the same on the AVCT thread.

I however have been here two months, and all of my 321 posts have been on ODX. Now I guess its possible, as a 6 year veteran of lse, I decided 2 month ago to take the user name TWatcher, post 321 posts under that name, wait for one day that I thought was the right day, and then post under my user name of 6 years, 1 post on odx, and then switch back to the user name of TWatcher. Leaving aside that I've been TWatcher over on ADVFN for over 15 years https://uk.advfn.com/forum/profile/twatcher , and announced in my first post here that i've came over from ADVFN because the ODX board over there wasn't up to much.

I guess it's possible.

But I'll tell you what. You were wrong. And you know your wrong, and you've just exposed yourself as someone who won't admit it. Within 10 mins of you posting the name of the newspaper, I'd searched the paper found the article that you reference, gave a link to it, and recited the relevant bit....I made your argument for you, even though it was going against my comments, comments that were solely based on the liverpool city council PDF, as you had failed to cite your sources.

What I didn't do was call you a UKIP supporter, what i didn't do was say you posted something that you didn't post. What i didnt' do was did myself into such a deep hole that I felt it better to ignore the truth and just dig deeper.

I'll leave it up to others to judge the rights and wrongs.

cite your source that I posted a twitter link ? Or you could do the ...you know... the honourable thing and admit that you got mixed up.

TRickmatters didn't feel any need to post a link to the liverpool echo article for the benefit of others. I 've searched it, here it is:-
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/2000-test-positive-covid-mass-19291271

That article does say that the LFT and PCR were mostly used for two different types of person, based on whether they had symptoms or not. My comments on this thread are purely based on the Liverpool city council pdf that was cited at this start of thread (NOT BY ME). I haven't even looked at the twitter link he also posted.. The Liverpool city council PDF does not make any differentiation as to the groups of people PCRed or LFTed, citing only pillar 2. The newspaper does make a differentiation, but do not cite how they made that assessment, it is clearly from another source other than the liverpool city council PDF.

Trickmatters:
" He's sharing a tweet from Richard Tice and banging on about having a healthy debate."

Might I bother you to cite your source for this, I have no idea who this richard guy is, and I am not the person who started this thread or posted the links....but like...don't let those facts get in the way of your rant.

beware...here be dragons :)

Who is talking about the BMJ article ?

I'm basing my comments here on the PDF that the original poster provided a link for, which is from Liverpool city council. It says that both PCR and LFT numbers are from and I quote "Pillar 2 (swab testing for the wider community population) testing data only".

You said that the data from from two entirely different sets of people, and I asked you to cite the source. You haven't

Flashy500....thats the antibody test !!

Trickymatters "Jesus. The sample cohort for the lft is anyone and everyone. They are searching for asymptomatic cases. The sample for PCR are people with suspected symptoms. Ffs."

Can you cite your evidence for this. The PDF states that both PCR and LFT were "Pillar 2 (swab testing for the wider community population) testing data only".

Prime concern is that the story might become,

"lateral flow tests are crap",
" the RTC test is a lateral flow test"
" ODX makes lateral flow test inlcuding the RTC test"
" ODX makes crap tests."
...given how the media make shortcuts, like disaster stories, and most people just read headlines

"TWatcher I think you have hold of the wrong end of the stick. We don't know that the PCR test is as accurate as you maintain. The LFT testing outcome might well be evidence for this."

Which is what I said, "That's an interest alternate view, that the LFT results are more valid because they detect less cases :)", implying that the PCR is getting a lot of false positives.

I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest what you are postulating, and the fact that those figures from liverpool show LFT picking up less cases, shows just that. LFT picks up less cases. It does not lead to any conclusion that the LFT is more or less accurate. However I think it is generally accepted that a laboratory chemical multi-temperature based test done in a controlled environment, will in general be more accurate than an LFT. To suggest that the PCR tests have a high incidence of false positives, is "a stretch"

For those that didn't read the links

for 6th-16th Nov
Liverpool residents tested with PCR 51,855 postive tests 1538
Liverpool residents tested with LFT 71,684 positive tests 439

"If the LFT tests are correct then the PCR testing conducted to date has massively overstated the prevalence of Covid19 (the disease) "

That's an interest alternate view, that the LFT results are more valid because they detect less cases :)

If the data in that report is accurate, then it's pretty poor evidence for using LFT for mass covid testing.
We know that a lab test will be better than an on-site 15 mins, with the trade-off being that you can process a lot more people. But if its acucracy is really bad, then you have to temper how much you read into the results, and on a person by person basis, it's not giving any individual any great confidence in the result.

Now it could well be just an indictment of the Innova test. We would need to know how the Molic antigen test compares with the Innova test.

Not sure what their particular agenda is, given both have virtually no prior history of posting on ODX. You'd assume that someone with nearly 14,000 posts on lse, would know what's what.

I'm not big on reporting people just for being a bit pratish. I did report some random guy a few days ago who thought it was smart to post contact details of someone on here, which is a no no.

is IMO, looking for what you want to see.

"Orders should be assumed when capacity is the restricting factor. "

On the 6th of Oct, ODX considered a 175K order for LFT products was worthy of an RNS.

We have had no order related RNSs since for any LFT products. Not for the RTC, nor for the visitect (for which they do not need to wait for anyone elses ok to announce). They don't have an antigen product, and so can not possibly announce orders for that.

Assuming orders, when none have been announced is, frankly, crazy. Assuming them purely based on CK indicating that their expectation was that the capacity would be used, whilst not putting any weight into CKs acknowledgement that he previously misjudged how long the initial order would take, and that he thought MHRA was taking longer than it should, is IMO.

This is NOT like oil. it's not a reserve in the ground being extracted. ODX needs orders to fulfil, and none have been announced.