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

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

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/finally-some-good-ne...

by and large consumers don't care if the company is for social change or not.

it's difficult for a company to succeed in getting customers to pay based purely on social change intentions. That's how a market works

like you said in 2008 there wasn't anything there. They lose millions the whole company dies

now Tesla operates in billions of dollars. They lose billions it's still only 10%

The 1st leaked email about burning cash over 10 months, causing the stock to crash even more

"where there's a will there's a way". So by your logic he wants the stock to go down

The 1st leaked email about burning cash over 10 months

How convenient that email leaked when the stock price is getting clobbered, adding insult to injury.

How convenient

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20010541

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20006782

Points: 5

# Comments: 2

Congrats Geoff! Much deserved. Looking forward to seeing great things at YC

The original post and every article online is citing Elon's email

Sensational headlines declaring Elon says Tesla will die, are headlines that generate clicks and views

Granted, I am sure Elon exaggerates numbers, but shouldn't that be factored in?

The original letter says the 2.4 billion raised a few weeks ago, would be used up in 10 months at current burn rate.

It's for the money recently raised, not the entire company's bank account. Headline is misleading

"I found this simple graphic a great distillation of why Lyft and Uber may be considered overvalued"

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.