I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but I can comment on it.
I will say that the data that we have from the trials so far is markedly limited. The number of end points is quite small.
There are two real challenges with bamlanivimab. One is identifying the people who will benefit, which is difficult to do early on. The number of people who would need to be administered the drug in order to prevent just hospitalization is in the order of about 100 people just to prevent one hospitalization.
More importantly, because it's a drug that needs to be administered intravenously, the course of therapy is really two hours: one hour for it to be administered and then another hour of observation. We would have to do that for the people who are most infectious early on in their course when they would be most infectious. On top of that, in order to identify them, first you need to get a positive test. What would normally happen in most centres around the country is that someone would be tested, and then they would get their information two or three days later. Then they would have to be brought back when a lot of that early benefit would be lost. For all of these reasons, the implementation challenges as well as the lack of information, it is a drug that, at the moment as far as we know, doesn't hold tremendous promise.
I will also point out one other thing that has been observed in the BLAZE trials. When bamlanivimab is used as monotherapy—it's used alone—we see these escape mutants, which are variants that are resistant to some degree to the immune system, escaping. What we would rather have and what the evidence suggests is combination therapy. We don't have a second drug, and obviously that adds to more complexity and cost.