If there are so many patients, why are the sample sizes so small? If our hospitals are flooded with dying people, as you say, then why can't they enroll more than a handful at a time? Surely, there should be a surfeit of people who could participate in these trials.
I can't speak for other centers, but in my center pretty much everyone is in a trial. Can't have a patient in two trials at once since your results would be meaningless. Far better to enroll people in to a big trial of a substance which had encouraging results in small trials than a substance which had negative results in small trials.
Antivirals pretty much don't work unless they're taken as post-exposure or pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Earlier treatment is obviously better, but there is still evidence for remdesivir once the patient is admitted to hospital, otherwise we wouldn't be using it.
The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29.
These patients need early, proactive interventions to prevent them from progressing to sepsis.
Like vaccination.
It is difficult to warn people about a virus and its properties when the fundamental knowledge is so lacking. I do indeed blame the government and the rapidly declining quality of public education for that. People are wearing scientific ignorance as a badge of pride, because science has become so politicized. It shouldn't be. Knowledge is power, and science is merely a means of obtaining knowledge.
QFT.
The government guidelines should be for people to stay active, stay healthy, diet correctly, and lower their BMI if they're overweight or obese. This would, in the long run, save many lives, because the evidence for COVID-19 causing greater mortality in people with a higher body-mass index (likely due to pre-existing endothelial dysfunction) is overwhelming.
Pretty much every government does tell people to do that, and it would save many lives from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc., not just COVID. Figure out a way to convince people to do it and collect your Nobel Prize.
Given that the IFR of COVID-19 is relatively low in absolute terms, not even near to approaching the lethality of something like Smallpox (which people lived with day in, day out, without any economic disruptions whatsoever, despite the gruesome toll in lives it took every year), the lockdowns and the strange behavior of our governments makes no sense unless there is an ulterior motive.
Because smallpox had existed for centuries and many people were already immune due to either variolation or childhood vaccines. COVID came out of nowhere and there was no pre-existing immunity. An unjust comparison.
I'll skip over all your mind control nonsense to address this. You've just linked a study which says "This novel feature of
SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication." Once again, you are making a great argument for getting vaccinated and avoiding all these potential complications of COVID infections.
Speaking to more esoteric meta issues, can you speculate on the possible negative consequences to going through the infection process, surviving, acquiring the natural antibodies, and appearing to make a full recovery such that you can resume life?
Take your pick:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8Such fun long term symptoms to choose from include fatigue, headaches, memory impairment, attention disorders, chest pain, breathlessness, hearing loss, joint pains, palpitations, depression, sleep apnea, psychiatric disorders, digestive problems, the list goes on.