Member Info for Unprecedented

If pa have been sourcing funnels and machinery etc then they would also have sourced reagents - they almost certainly would have decided which ones to use and made sure there was sufficient supply

Scottyvid https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/0e2237f3-e917-4957-9711-6de1c33be75d

Pl75 - fair play, I hadn’t quite worked it out in November - as I say it only now starts to make sense - but I did question whether any of the international firms would want to bid for a 5 pound test.

No I think that the pa consulting award is confirmation that all U.K. manufacturers were selected late last year to take part in a national effort to create a 5 pound domestic lft. It all finally starts to make sense. I never understood why avacta never get a mention in any of the portion down reports - it’s because they don’t produce an avacta branded test, they are contributing to the sovereign U.K. test. The tender is a sideshow. It explains all the confusing comms lately.

We won’t bid for that tender. We are part of the domestic supply consortium manufactured by bbi , odx, Mologic, Abingdon, managed by pa consulting, based on affimer reagents and the bbi app all working to produce 2m lfts per day for Boris from February onwards.

I wonder whether the tender is really just a market testing exercise. All domestic players are involved in the sovereign supply and won’t bid. The tender is to see whether any international firms out there can and are prepared to produce the same quality test at the same price as the domestic test - they won’t hold out too much hope but the tender will cover the governments back in case there are challenges in future as to why they invested in a domestic supply. Fits in neatly with them releasing details about pa consulting’s involvement in organising the domestic supply just as the tender closes. By that reasoning we may even see some details now being published of contracts going Avactas way for preparing the magic ingredients.... wishful thinking?

Avacta have been told they got a slice of the procurement by government but have decided it is safer to wait for any announcements until the standstill period has finished.

Think that means they are marked down in according to the U.K. tender criteria

I am completely convinced Avacta will take part in this procurement. However and this may sound slightly far fetched but will any of the established names actually take part. Abbot, Innova and the other current players may decide that £6 per test is less than they will get elsewhere and reserve their no doubt limited supply for other buyers. Equally they may decide they will not be in a position to meet the S&S requirements. Its also puzzling that price is pretty much the single criterion used - rather than S&S.

Agree - so the only question remaining is whether there are any other tests out there that have been engineered to use this standard kit

Exquisite rather than quite good Robotics

But I always wonder about the timing of meaningless updates like this. What if it was timed just before the big Boris boast of mass testing this afternoon to ensure promises made to update the market were kept. The directors interview talks about clinical test locations already having been lined up - sounds like there has been some government assistance there. The avacta pilot of BAMS in 4 locations is almost immediately followed by a procurement for a U.K. pilot study. Perhaps we are on the cusp of Boris showing his hand with regard to the U.K. manufactured supply. Or perhaps this is just more wishful thinking.

That’s my reading Spike. It sounds like BBI had to redesign from the ground up. At least we may be almost there now.

On the positive side, this RNS has not formally revised previously stated timescales. Will be interesting to listen out for any U.K. manufactured references by Boris!

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/14/fast-tests-for-covid-19-are-coming

Behind a paywall - makes the case for home tests, ideally using saliva

Not sure whether this was posted previously but in this interview John Bell explicitly explains why saliva tests didn’t work very well and that the six tests they selected so far are all swab based. Doesn’t sound good at all and even if our test has simply not yet been reviewed, you wonder why he goes on to say that they are working with the regulators to see if they can certify the swabbed tests for home use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08y1k2j
From 17:30 onwards

And in the same programme an hour earlier, the director of public health in Liverpool confirmed that the pilot would NOT use saliva tests - just back of the throat or nose swabs.....

Wording on the freight order would suggest the kit in Liverpool is only an initial range of kit to be replaced by domestically produced kit:

Successful validation of an initial range of newly developed Covid-19 lateral flow test kits was completed by the DHSC in September, allowing for orders to be placed to secure a sustainable supply of significant volumes of these products, as a fundamental enabler of the expansion of the testing programme. The supply of these new test kits is currently limited in the face of very high global demand and consequently it was necessary to contract for supply on an ex-works basis for product manufactured in China in order to secure the required quantity of product and prevent gazumping.

Antibody test

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2068918-manchester-firms-covid-19-test-begins-international-pilot/