Member Info for TWatcher

From the Gov point of view, you have a company that has demonstrated it can supply 1M a day, every day, at a cost that is acceptable, and which your scientists have tested and passed. What is the compelling reason to switch to another test, once you've been using it for a month And if by some chance they do decide to switch, we don't even know if the mologic test is even in the mix of the other 5. And mologic + ODX combined can not produce 1M a day even when at max capacity.

The amount of money, and time of senior management, it takes to do such litigation is tremendous.

And although ODX might be able to prove some damage, it's not their test, they are merely a manufacturing partner. I assume UK GOV has some ownership of the test ?

"Innova told the Guardian it was now shipping more than one million tests a day to the UK."

ffs

I read thru that, waiting to see what questions you were going to ask him. Apparently you thought it was worthwhile writing effectively a supportive letter from an invest holding a small bit of shares.

"Anyway, I just thought it important, for me, to share my thoughts."
What is he, your therapist ?

If you're going to write to the CEO , at least ask a gawd damn question.

"WHAT ON EARTH ARE WE DOING AT 46p ??????????"

Most shares to some extent are affected by current market sentiment. ODX is a covid play. And the current market sentiment for ODX is negative (you can argue all you like that it's wrong etc, based on bad/biased reports, but that doesn't change the sentiment).

ODX now needs a company announcement that demonstrates that it's Covid strategy has started to turn from mere strategy into money making orders. It needs a covid related order. The only one so far formally identified (175K) took less than one week in October to produce. What exactly has that 200K a week (rising to 300K a week) been producing.

What we don't want is the interim statement saying that capacity isn't being used, unless it comes with a big order.

"In the Ulster test, the ‘public’ did all the stages but under ‘supervision’. I assume, with the exception of the PHE/ONS tests, that’ll be how it will be used. For the PHE/ONS studies, I expect everything will be done at home and then returned."

Cheers

THere is a known contract for 1M test from the consortium, and ODX with make 175K of them.

There was another "contract/award" for £75M from the government for an undisclosed number of tests from the consortium. When ODX was queried why there was no RNS, we were advised that ODX had received no order from Abingdon, and further discussion concluded that this was a placeholder contract or some such, and could not be described as an order.

Twatcher, can you read mate? Read the Abingdon report which ODX have included in the link.

My last post on this thread was 10:15 this morning. The Abingdon sourced RNS came on around 3:30pm

"Think what happens now if you go to some of the test sites. You are handed a test pack, you take the swab, put it back into the packaging, label it, etc. and then hand it in. You don't have a nurse/doctor showing the swab down your throat and up your nose - it is self administered, ostensibly under supervision. The same thing will happen with the antibody test."

I'm not sure how that extrapolates to a finger prick test. You do everything, but hand it over and wait 15 minutes to be read ?

Regulator
"The issue we have is that access to the UK-RTC test is controlled by the DHSC. They pushed it into approval for self-test use without making it clear what they meant by 'self-use', which has led to some people thinking its going to be available OTC for Joe Public to use at home."

THe RNS today says:-
"They were never intended for, and have never been issued for widespread public use"

So is "widespread public use", "self-use" ? If it is, then the unless they are been clever with words, they do not intend it for self-use.

The obvious question is, why has ODX, and specifically Colin King, been waiting on MHRA (as clearly evident from the presentation two weeks ago), if MHRA has not been sought. And if it has been sought, why has it been sought ?

To be fair, ODX has rerated the month.

The RNS ODX released is an "RNS NON", inidcating there is no price sensitive info in it.

The market however begs to differ.

“This report shows these tests are approved for use in surveillance studies, which is what they were purchased for.
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"

Again the exact wording is important. You might read that and think there was no thought of using the RTC for home use.
But it actually says the "PURCHASED" test were not intended for, and have not been used for widespread pubic use. So I read that as referring to the 1M that has already been purchased.

So what of home use, is that now off the table ? Was it ever on the table ? Have I misunderstood the MHRA approval that was much talked about, as it has been assumed on here by most that MHRA approval = home/self use. If that is not what it means, what does MHRA approval bring to the test ? If nothing, why are we talking about it ?

It is interesting to note that the statement does not mention any intention at any time in the future for home/self use.

Thoughts ?

can someone loan me their decoder ring ?

I've decided that the body of evidence suggests you don't have a clue.

I note until yesterday, you had never made a comment on ODX. Agenda ?

Errhum
"I have no doubt that an academic somewhere has probably read and even enjoyed both publications"

'An academic somewhere', you've missed your calling.

2 Professor in Statistics, one of whom is the co-chair of the RSS covid-19 taskforce.
2 Professors in Immunology
A Professor in Biology Technology

That's a group of senior academics from a wide range of disciples, all of whom had read and articulated an opinion on the piece on the morning of the publication.

Maybe they were just looking at the pretty pictures

I skimmed the paperwork that regulator gave a link to (thanks), but don't pretend to have looked at the details.

On the face of it, is the case fundamentally about contracts being awarded without tender ? If so, we've seen endless of those on the bidstats website such as this one:
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W43/737214508

where "emergency" is cited as a reason for not going out to tender. I wonder why are the people taking the case going for the contract for RTC, and not much juicer contracts in the same realm that happened on the same basis.

Errhum
TWatcher - you are misquoting me. I never said that. I said they read it with a huge pinch of salt and a raised eyebrow.

My posting was not a direct quote from you, however the next bit is:-

Errhum
The BMJ doesn't have an academic readership, it has to re-write and review real scientific papers so that the non-science, non-academic medical professionals can read it more easily.

You posted academics don't read the BMJ. And you don't even remember posting it an hr ago.

ErrHum...yeah right, you're the same guy that said academics don't read the BMJ.