I don't see how any of this would increase the time to evaluate a given study participant beyond ~2 weeks? Regarding what you said about prophylaxis, the study

I don't see how any of this would increase the time to evaluate a given study participant beyond ~2 weeks? Regarding what you said about prophylaxis, the study page specifies that participants will either: * Have had close contact with a known positive individual within the past 4 days (but not have any symptoms themselves yet). * Have developed symptoms (and tested positive) within the past 4 days. Technically that's not really a prophylaxis, but it's early enough that it's practically the same thing. It's also more representative of how we would be likely to employ the medication in the real world. (Also I don't see how it would be ethical to intentionally expose people, and waiting for people to be inadvertently exposed seems impractical for a number of reasons). Edit: Whoops. I had slightly confused the smaller PATCH trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923) and the larger University of Minnesota one (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308668 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308668). It looks like the PATCH trial is indeed only testing actual prophylaxis in healthcare workers, and specifies a two month period for each participant in the trial.