FDA's At-Home Testing Screw-Up Is Undermining Promising New COVID Treatments
The same agency that stymied COVID-19 testing is now dawdling over approving new antiviral pills.

Should the worrisome omicron coronavirus variant turn out to be more contagious and more severe than currently circulating versions of the virus, the COVID-19 antiviral pills developed by Pfizer and Merck will likely be effective at reducing the risks of hospitalization and death from that variant. Why? Because both medicines disrupt parts of the virus' genome that are necessary for its replication and which, unlike the virus' spike protein that most vaccines target, rarely mutate.
The Pfizer pill (Paxlovid) is a combination of the ritonavir protease HIV inhibitor and a new protease inhibitor that targets a specific enzyme that the coronavirus needs to replicate and grow. Merck's pill (molnupiravir), developed with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is a ribonucleoside analog; when the virus incorporates it during replication, it basically causes the virus to mutate itself death.
Early indications in the clinical trials suggested that both medicines were so effective that it would have been unethical to continue enrolling control subjects to take placebos. In October, Merck reported initially that its pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 infections by 50 percent. However, the latest data from Merck suggests that its molnupiravir pill reduces the risks of COVID-19 hospitalization and death by about 30 percent.
In early November, Pfizer reported that its Paxlovid treatment reduced "the risk of hospitalization or death by 89% compared to placebo in non-hospitalized high-risk adults with COVID-19." Yesterday, Pfizer CEO Alberta Boula told CNBC that he has a "very high level of confidence that the treatment will not be affected" by the omicron variant.
On November 4, the United Kingdom's regulatory authorities approved molnupiravir as a treatment for COVID-19 infections. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to dawdle over approving medications that were so effective that independent Data Monitoring Committees ruled that it would be unethical to continue giving placebos to study participants.
Speaking of dawdling, the FDA has long stymied the development and roll out of another vital component for the effective use of these antiviral medications: namely, at-home COVID-19 testing. Both pills must be taken by people within 3 to 5 days of exposure or symptom onset to be most effective at preventing hospitalization and death. That means that people need to be able to test themselves quickly, easily, and cheaply.
Up until mid-October, the FDA had approved only two over-the-counter at-home COVID-19 diagnostic tests, one of which has now had to be recalled. In the last month and a half, agency regulators have finally gotten around to authorizing nine more. The good news is that preliminary evidence suggests that current self-tests would be able to detect omicron variant infections.
A February 2021 poll by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health reported if COVID-19 self-tests cost $1 a piece, 79 percent of Americans would test themselves regularly at home. That figure dropped to only 33 percent if the cost was $25 per test. In the poll, the vast majority of respondents said that positive test results would spur them to take precautions to protect their family, friends, and work colleagues from becoming infected. According to the poll, 94 percent would stay home, 93 percent would isolate from family members, and 90 percent would wear a mask and make sure household members/close contacts got tested.
A quick internet check finds that most COVID-19 self-tests are still not widely available and those that are available cost more than $20. Of course, speedier FDA approval of COVID-19 self-tests would have spurred competition between brands that would have made them more widely available and lowered their prices to consumers.
Interestingly, New Hampshire public health officials began offering to send free (tax-paid) at-home COVID-19 tests to any of the state's residents on Monday. In less than 24-hours, 100,000 households had requested them, exhausting the "Live Free or Die" state government's supplies. (I brought home 28 COVID-19 self-tests that were being given away by public health functionaries on the streets of Glasgow, Scotland, while I was there covering the U.N. climate change conference.)
In October, the Biden Administration announced that it would spend $1 billion on purchasing and distributing at-home COVID-19 tests for free at public health clinics, food pantries, and community centers. The goal is to ramp up production to 200 million at-home tests in December. That amounts to around 0.6 tests per American per month. That's not enough testing to diagnose in a timely fashion a lot of people who could benefit from the new COVID-19 antiviral pills when the FDA finally gets around to approving them.
Let's hope that the worst fears about the omicron variant are not realized, but ramping up access to millions of cheap COVID-19 self-tests daily would enable people who do become infected to voluntarily take measures to prevent transmitting the virus onward to family, friends, and their fellow Americans.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Tragedy of common stupidity.
Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.
Try now……………… Visit Here
Job Opening for woke criminal defense lawyer
Darrel Brooks is looking for another lawyer after his most recent one withdrew from the case (because he knew some of Brooks' victims)
https://beckernews.com/plot-twist-in-waukesha-parade-attack-trial-darrell-edward-brooks-says-only-one-word-and-the-court-makes-a-major-shakeup-43276/
Has anyone started a GoFundMe to help Brooks get a new vehicle?
The damage to the front end was really unfortunate. And a conviction in this case could make Brooks unemployable, thus furthering his descent into marginalized status.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.SFh Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here.........VISIT HERE
Someone tried to bail him out. I guess go fund me pulled it though.
First google hit https://nypost.com/2021/11/25/gofundme-page-for-waukesha-parade-suspect-darrell-brooks-pulled/
I've been on the wrong side of poe's law a lot recently. But the GFM had to be performative, the description and the list of hashtags is great.
“There is no excuse for this continued treatment of black Americans by prosecutors around the country,” the fundraiser claimed.
“We ask that he be treated equally as anyone else in this country would be treated and he should be released until found guilty,” it said, according to the screenshots.
It ended, “#BLM, #IStandWithDarrell, #NoJusticeNoPeace and #RacismIsReal.”
The person who set up the gofundme is big time antifa...
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1465042189428346881?t=i6f10P9V7zD_19z4mLHt7w&s=19
Who is Holly Zoller?
[Links]
Earlier today, President Biden said that his administration was “monitoring” the situation without making any political statement on the Waukesha parade attack.
Unlike the Rittenhouse case, where Biden correctly pronounced Rittenhouse a White Supremacist.
Is the approved antiviral pill your talking about the same one where phizer took ivermectin, changed a non active component and got a new pattent?
Revised horse paste.
Pfizermectin is a miracle cure!
Are there any viral tales you don't fall for?
Early indications in the clinical trials suggested that both medicines were so effective that it would have been unethical to continue enrolling control subjects to take placebos.
You know what else had early indications that it was so effective you could neither catch, nor transmit the disease?
Well, not the COVID-19 vaccines. Nobody has ever claimed 100% efficacy for ANY vaccine.
Yes, they did. And then when they were shown the video evidence, they dithered and and Reuters did a "fact check" full of throat clearing and "well, but yeahs" claiming that the pesky delta variant hadn't shown up yet so ignore the man behind the curtain. Then someone fact checked the Reuters fact check and found that 48 hours later (months before Delta), the CDC was quietly backing away from those comments saying "they were speaking broadly".
“They”?
Give me an actual cite, please.
LOL not that you will actually learn anything
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/cdc-walks-back-claim-that-vaccinated-people-cant-carry-covid/
When Biden said the vaxxed couldn't get covid, Delta was already the dominant strain!
Yes, you are correct that the CDC has a history of making stupid misstatements. You’ve got me on that one.
In the category of 'melodramatic quote mining in order to grievance signal, the nominees are..."
And by the way, I don't expect any vaccine to be 100% effective either, but I do expect it should, you know, keep most people from catching the disease.
Minor caveat - vaccines don't prevent you from getting the disease nor from passing it on. They prepare your body to fight off the disease when you're infected by it and shorten the time it's communicable. Ideally that's a really short time but it's still there since your immune system can't actually respond until after it detects the disease and it can't do that until after it's invaded the body.
Another thing anti-vaxxers don’t seem to understand is that a vaccine cannot make someone with a weak or aging immune system magically have a stronger immune system.
The immunity comes from each individual’s own body, not from the vaccine. This is true of any vaccine.
Lmfao. Now feel free to explain why children should be universally vaccinated against a disease that their immune systems are particularly strong at repelling, or why recovered COVID patients should receive a vaccine against a disease for which they already enjoy broad immunity that confers 12-39 times better protection against reinfection than the vaccine.
Then again, this is the same clinically retarded sack of genetic refuse that thinks failing to take a modestly effective prophylactic makes a person and "anti-vaxxer". I can presume that since White Mikey is not currently undergoing chemotherapy that he's an anti-chemo nutcase. Context is unimportant. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have cancer, or another disease for which chemotherapy is beneficial. He's obvious anti-chemo. QED.
(Yes, White Mikey, this is literally how fucking stupid you sound)
"Now feel free to explain why... already enjoy broad immunity that confers 12-39 times better protection against reinfection than the vaccine"
Usual reason, anti-vax facts tend to be horsesh*t.
Even the (Israel) preprint that went viral in partisan/grievance media found "Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant"
e.g. less than half as vulnerable
www DOT cdc DOT gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w
"failing to take a modestly effective prophylactic makes a person an "anti-vaxxer""
No, it's the spreading of viral horsesh*t to discourage vaccination – a long-running tradition in anti-vax horsesh*t generation – that tends to provoke the description.
Application of English really ("anti", "vaccination"... inconvenient as honest use of language tends to be in important ideological warfare.)
Feeling that your horsesh*t is new and improved is valid but doesn't add relevant information or shift the genre.
On the plus side, when you have the techniques down, much bigger targets come into scope, like evolution. You'll be the bane of lysenkoists in no time.
So instead of sayyyy, 1% likely to signficantly catch the disease so they show symptoms they were 0.3% likely to catch the disease. It's called diminishing returns. You get a similar effect with monitor refresh rate and pixel density.
Yes, just like buying monitors.
Average risk of symptomatic re-infection to delta exposure is probably at least up in the 10-20% range, so the returns aren't really very diminishing across large populations.
In epidemiology, if you start running numbers on infection rates you find that sharp changes like this to R end up driving quite black and white differences at whole population levels – epidemics continuing or not, hospitals overloading or not and therefore between the need for other emergency counter-measures or not.
For reasoning about health, you look at the incidence of longer term health impact – lasting pulmonary complications, neurological damage (brain fog, mobility, psychiatric), cardiovascular effects. Some studies found neurological complications as common as 1 in 3, 10% seems an accepted rough estimate of longer term organ/health/brain damage.
A couple of other tests – pretty uniformly, vaccine contrarians regret their positions once health impact is on them, a consistent sign that the position is more political posturing than grounded in reason.
Inflating the (hard to even detect) risks of vaccination while denying the large long-term health risks from covid infection, both fueled by storms of media-amplified misinformation. A simple risk assessment bias successfully politicized and factionalized along with every aspect of the pandemic.
Perhaps this irrational politicization yields political wins for Republicans and that's the point, but it is certainly not wins for the people skipping vaccination or their families, per everyday stats. Nor the rest of the population having to deal with a larger ongoing epidemic than necessary.
Not to mention the cultural fallout from the ongoing ideological campaign to push the country hard away from "the light of truth and reason" having triumphed, per founders.
It's odd that we didn't need to caveat and police our language when discussing immunity vis-a-vis any previous vaccination ever made publicly available.
Thanks for being a pedantic fucking moron though.
"ever made publicly available "
This is where you sound a bit green btw.
Look up how Bill Gates' polio vaccine was supposed to stop polio but actually disabled 47,000 kids and drove *new* polio cases.
Good time to take the red pill properly.
www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=9CS7j5I6aOc
Yeah, 100% effective is unrealistic. Even modestly more effective than the unadulterated immune system of a 1 yr. old is not.
Which it does. We can break down the various levels of viral wrongness here on a few levels.
First, "virus" and "disease" are different terms. The disease is covid-19, vaccines continue to have significant effectiveness against symptomatic illness, i.e. "keep most people from catching the disease".
Second, of course pre-delta studies were clear about preventing transmission / majority of infections as well.
“overall vaccine effectiveness against transmission was 88.5%”
www DOT medrxiv DOT org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v1
Delta variant degraded effectiveness but didn't stop them being vaccines. Preponderance of studies still find significant prevention of infection.
"BNT162b2 effectiveness against any Delta infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was 64.2%”
www DOT medrxiv DOT org/content/10.1101/2021.08.11.21261885v1
Paxlovid? Really?
For the sci-fi geeks like myself, in the Joss Whedon movie Serenity, "Pax" is the nickname for the substance that the government put in the air circulators to calm the population of the frontier planet Miranda that ends up killing 99.9% of the people and turns the remaining 0.1% homicidally cannibalistic.
Maybe someone in the know at Pfizer is sending a message?
And here I thought Brandon and Fauci were following the plot of V for Vendetta.
No no no it turns out people like being meddled with.
"Maybe someone in the know at Pfizer is sending a message?"
Thank God people on the internet are listening closely for clues.
Has Q commented yet?
>>Let's hope that the worst fears about the omicron variant are not realized
fucking love you, man.
my feelings when I read that too, l o l
This guy has been pissing and moaning about testing for almost 2 fucking years.
his unfortunate obsession.
This guy has been pissing and moaning about testing for almost 2 fucking years.
Which illustrates either his childlike naïveté, or that he’s just an asshat.
The last thing Fauci and his pals want is the chimps finding out they’ve already had Covid, with minor to zero symptoms, and then decide they don't need anymore fucking jabs.
Maybe Bailey should try explaining, from a scientific view of course, why that would be undesirable to Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson.
Or, you know, it’s Bailey being consistent in his position.
Being consistently naive or a consistent asshat is not really anything to hang your hat on, but then they say a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and we'd be hard pressed to fine one smaller than yours.
That's because the FDA backlog is over 3,000 emergency use application deep and getting deeper given their general incompetence.
"Should the worrisome omicron coronavirus variant turn out to be more contagious"
“I said these different symptoms can’t be delta, they are very similar to beta or it must be a new strain,” she said in an interview on Monday. “I don’t think it will blow over but I think it will be a mild disease hopefully. For now we are confident we can handle it.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/us-may-impose-new-omicron-inspired-travel-restrictions-more-cases-confirmed-canada
Assuming the US does impose new travel restrictions, how much longer until Americans who don't have their boosters are treated as de facto unvaccinated? While those who haven't had any of their shots are treated like lepers.
how much longer until Americans [sic] who haven't had any of their shots are treated like lepers.
Never. Leprosy kills the nerves in the extremities, rendering them useless. 0.0% of COVID sufferers will incur such incapacitation of their trigger fingers.
mutate itself death
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
That amounts to around 0.6 tests per American per month. That's not enough testing to diagnose in a timely fashion a lot of people who could benefit from the new COVID-19 antiviral pills when the FDA finally gets around to approving them.
Uh, Ron, the "I'm a science reporter." mask goes on your face, not your dick.
That's 0.6 tests per American per month assuming you're, for some unstated reason, monitoring children, people who've already had the disease, everyone who's still sheltering in place, *and* everyone who doesn't want to be monitored.
Dec 1, 2021: 49 million total COVID cases. One quarter of the number of tests already bought and paid for.
You can shove your test kit up your ass every two weeks until they 'beat COVID' you dumb fuck.
I mean, Jesus, even in some sort of full monitoring regime, the notion would be to identify the infected and only test the known contacts in the window. You dumb fucks are even more retarded than a Spinal Tap parody; the *only* setting on your speakers is 11.
These pills ain't candy. I don't think people should be self-administering them on the basis of home CoVID testing.
De-fund the FDA, CDC and NIH make more since than De-fund the police. While I agree that the police need to be more localized and less militarized, these alphabet agencies are simply a worthless comedy of errors and bureaucratic colossal failures.
They demand control, but then can't deliver. They delay approvals attempting to prove efficacy, when they should simply be checking on risk and harm. They avoid speaking truth in favor of manipulation.
The funny thing is that eventually Truth shines through. I find that by simply speaking what you do know, and then offering guidelines based on what you believe with arguments of why and let people decide for themselves.
Instead they lie because they feel that they can manipulate people and believe that the ends justify the means. They typically forget to factor in the unintended consequences and treat every situation from their narrow focus.
It's not that they are particularly sinister, but they sort of are. For all their talk about being open minded, then are as long as you fall into the prescribed narrative.
Andiamo Brandon!
I'm all for expeditiousness, but the fact that Merck claimed its pill was 50% effective, and now that's down to 30% effective and some significant possible side effects have been uncovered, shows there is would be an issue with moving too fast.