https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34901299/The tried and tested...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34901299/
The tried and tested FLU-PRO plus instrument questionnaire was used.
Are you suggesting they further break down the subsets from age to include strain of virus? This would further complicate the management of the trial design and smaller subsets potentially leaving it even more susceptible to underpowered results. The only way you do that is to infect people with a particular variant. Ethically not going to happen. Or recruit participants test them to determine which variant they have then go from there. It was hard enough to get the numbers as it was. But what would you be achieving anyway? All the study is doing is proving that the probability or likelihood the effect is not due to chance greater than 95%. I don’t see any point arguing with the trial design when the mechanism of action is simple antiviral encapsulation of broad spectrum virus. It’s been synthesised to be a specific size droplet, the device has been designed to provide the coverage necessary to do the job. Most People capable of following instructions can effectively use the thing. The primary end point of the study was met with flying colours almost 100% for those who completed the trial in full. Those who didn’t complete the full corse of treatment likely did so because they recovered quicker, being younger and healthier. Bit of speculation there of course. The findings in the questionnaire are reported as they present. But there is a few here that have the option that it is fair to reason the results may not necessarily show the true picture of how it played out. I’m tempted to agree.