> I'm no pharmacologist but I think we would be extremely lucky if one of existing antivirals also works here. Even if the results are bad, it also depends on

> I'm no pharmacologist but I think we would be extremely lucky if one of existing antivirals also works here. Even if the results are bad, it also depends on what they were used for, since the little evidence we have tells us that the sooner we act, the better. Example: ritonavir was a letdown, but even in the NEJM paper the limitations of the study mention that the trial was done on people with rather severe sympthoms. At this point it was probably too late to make a dent in the infection. The data on remedisivir (which came from two suspended trials due to lack of enrollment, so no statistical power) showed an almost-identical mortality between the two groups, but I'd argue that those (at least one of them was) were done on patients in severe conditions, so once again late. Later trials which are ongoing are hopefully better designed (NIH's for remedisivir at least, Gilead's don't use a placebo IIRC) and will get us answers. IMO, even a small improvement on hospitalization rate would be a huge win for the ICUs. That said, remedisivir is i.v. so this limits applicability to hospitals.