This treatment is after they get infected. Do you understand what that means? There is no causal chain of events where the pills are better than the vaccine. If

This treatment is after they get infected. Do you understand what that means? There is no causal chain of events where the pills are better than the vaccine. If the vaccine kills you then so will the virus. If the vaccine doesn't kill you then your chances of death are now significantly lower. You are more likely to die in a car crash than from the vaccine. All the pills are going to do is convince some suckers to pay up for a treatment that they could have avoided if they'd gotten a free vaccine. There are no situations in which the pills are any better, all they do is lower the chances of death when people inevitably get infected because they refused to get the vaccine. At best the pills are a palliative measure which I guess is better than nothing but is not a substitute for a vaccine. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. We're not getting anywhere. These pills are not even a long term solution. Repeatedly using them introduces mutations in human DNA: > A drug that’s so good at messing with viral RNA has led some to ask whether it messes with human DNA, too. (Merck’s trial excluded pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women of childbearing age had to be on contraceptives.) This is a long-standing concern about antiviral drugs that introduce genomic errors. A recent study suggests that molnupiravir, taken at high doses and for extended periods, can, in fact, introduce mutations into DNA. So every dosing regiment of the pills means you are upping your chances of getting cancer. This is exactly the type of trade-off I would expect to be made by people who have no clue how vaccines work.