if Remdemsivir cures 100% of all Covid-19 cases, halfway through the trial, they would have enough data to show a net positive benefit. They don't need to finish the whole trial to declare Remdemsivir useful
the fact that they are running the whole trial to finish, most likely means the effect of Remdemsivir is not too noticeable. They need more data to get to statistical significance. Hence, they want the trial to run to original planned finish date.
my guess is
Remdemsivir probably has some positive effect. Say, 10% lower death rate if used during 1st few days of infection. Still great, much much better than our current situation of nothing. It would not cure Covid completely, but it would help substantially, especially in large populations of infected
yes but, if in a trial, if one arm performs substantially different than the control arm (e.g. 50% or even 100% lower death rate), the large difference between arms can lead to investigators ending the trial early
ironically, this happened in a previous 2019 trial of Remdemsivir, for a different virus, Ebola
in that trial, 4 drugs for Ebola were tested, including Remdemsivir. 2 non-Remdemsivir drugs succeeded substantially--the large difference between those drugs and Remdemsivir, was enough to cause the investigator to end the trial early and drop Remdemsivir
ironically, the investigator for that trial was none-other-than Dr. Fauci. Maybe that's why he hasn't mentioned Remdemsivir much on TV these days, based on his past professional disappointing experience with Remdemsivir
also, double ironically, Remdemsivir was initially designed to treat Ebola virus, not for flu or coronavirus type viruses. The fact that after the Ebola trial, Remdemsivir was declared not that effective for Ebola (the very virus Remdemsivir was created for), means there is even less of a chance Remdemsivir will prove to be effective for Covid-19 in the current trials
care to give some examples? Because I am a curious reader who does not live in Iceland and don't have the context to be able to identify the embellishments
If Lyft becomes the next Pets.com and goes bust, its stock would be worth $0. If that happened, it would be laughable to say that Lyft is under-valued, simply because Ford is valued in the billions.
Ford's valuation has nothing to do with how Lyft is valued. To say that Lyft is over/under valued because Ford has X valuation, like what your graphic is saying, makes no sense at all.
Yes, either case is possible. Lyft could become Pets.com or Amazon.
You can argue that Lyft will become Pets.com, due to other reasons, such as growth potential etc. That would make sense.
BUT, the argument in your graphic, that a company is overvalued simply because its valuation is higher than traditional well-known brands, that ARGUMENT is flawed.
Lyft's valuation is totally independent of Ford's valuation. These are separate companies with separate paths. Amazon's valuation was not tied to Sears--the 60-minutes journalist made the mistake of connecting the 2 together. The argument behind your graphic is wrong.
Here is an 60-minute interview, in 1999. The journalist/expert made the same argument as in your graphic, that a software company is overvalued because its market cap is higher than traditional companies
the interviewer literally laughed at how Amazon is overvalued, because its stock price was worth 20% MORE than a real company like Sears. Your graphic uses the same logic as that interviewer did in 1999.
if Remdemsivir cures 100% of all Covid-19 cases, halfway through the trial, they would have enough data to show a net positive benefit. They don't need to finish the whole trial to declare Remdemsivir useful
the fact that they are running the whole trial to finish, most likely means the effect of Remdemsivir is not too noticeable. They need more data to get to statistical significance. Hence, they want the trial to run to original planned finish date.
my guess is
Remdemsivir probably has some positive effect. Say, 10% lower death rate if used during 1st few days of infection. Still great, much much better than our current situation of nothing. It would not cure Covid completely, but it would help substantially, especially in large populations of infected