Game On

So, here's the headline: "Merck's Covid-19 pill is great news but may not be a game-changer". So, of course I disagree, but not in the obvious way.

The essence of the piece is that any anti-viral isn't the key to stopping the march of Covid.

Effective pills given to outpatients could make a large difference for several distinct groups: for people with mild illness, it could prevent progression to more severe, even life-threatening illness, as the study apparently shows; provide an alternative approach to prevent severe disease in vaccine-refuseniks and vaccine-non-responders (those with severely weakened immune systems); and potentially protect those with recent close exposure to an active case (studies already are underway to examine this last possible use).

And, naturally, therein lies the problems.
- the patient has to have symptoms
- the patient has to get the anti-viral pretty much immediately

As the report says:

Antiviral agents work best when given at first symptoms of disease. Symptoms of early Covid-19 resemble those of countless other viral respiratory infections, such as flu and common colds: sniffles, cough, an upset stomach, a little fever. Nothing specific.

What's the chance that the patient will get this anti-viral soon enough for it to be effective? Kind of like knowing you're pregnant within six weeks. Not much.

And, more importantly, soon enough to render the patient non-infective? Recall: the most important point of the vaccines (alas, apologies to the vaccinated), is to stop transmission. If we all had the DeSantis/Abbott protocol, no one would get either vaccine or anti-viral, and Covid would just run its natural course through the population. God will protect the Godly.