Oh, my thoughts are similar to yours. I agree this a very good...

Oh, my thoughts are similar to yours. I agree this a very good development for LDX brand and science.

There is of course the potential negative impact that AT1 may have yet another C19 test competitor locally (and one with excess local AU manufacturing space + gov vested interests)...but LDX had already indicated it was targeting multiple geos for CoviDX approval, so this isn't a big surprise.

However, from the PoV of post-Covid world of PoC tests and potential LDX-AT1 partnerships, its fantastic. If local gov are finally seeing the value of boosting Dx tech here (even if its for theirs short term political gain), its good for all AU Dx tech companies.

Will we now see NSW gov work with AT1 for a NSW manufacturing site also? LOL...ADO has QLD gov support, VIC has LDX and NSW has AT1. Will be quite ironic considering no gov leaders were interested in RDTs just a couple qtrs ago...

Having free gov support and $ to build up company owned manufacturing capability is very nice on any day (though labour n transport costs from/to AU geo will be higher if LDX plans to export elsewhere).

Having gov vested interest in LDX brand can potentially lead to more access for Febdrix test usage in the future (if not mandatory adoption into gov managed clinics, remote diagnosis processes etc). And similar potential access for future LDX PoCs (which may/may not use AT1 devices).

Its also possible AT1 might sign a C19 distribution agreement for LDX CoviDx in other geos- leveraging the the 'Made+Approved by AU TGA' option (since AccBio agreement is limited to ANZ for now and securing more US supply is limited).

LDX manufacturing scale-up (post TGA approval) is not limited for AU supply, just needs to have priority. Assuming C19 demand and new variants develop for next 12-24mths, lots of geos will continue mass testing (till it becomes endemic). Two different agreements would be better for AT1 to continue getting bonus rev from more geos.

Beyond that, as always, option for LDX licensing AT1 device manufacture (for FebriDx and future disease tests) is always there. And having local manufacturing option is a good selling point and alternate to US sites.

Certainly, post-Covid19, if FebriDx usage in regular diagnosis' takes off strongly, over next 5yrs, going to need a lot of manufacturing capability to supply many geos so more sites is good. Its even good for random what-ifs...eg: If there is an issue with China supply chain for its base plastic components, AT1 could sub-contract to LDX site (US or AU) and/or AccBio (US/Ethiopia) for HIV, FebriDx...and so on...

Almost all the above is speculation of course based on LDX ann and nothing may flow onto AT1 biz (beyond the increased C19 test competition)...but most at least are positive possibilities...