>

From the article:

Researchers bathed human lung cells in solutions made from the compounds and then infected the cells with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Something tells me that this isn't an effective treatment at the moment.
Other than the vaccine, has any treatment or medication against COVID ever made it into production?  
There's been a new "promising new treatment" for COVID pretty much every week since it began, yet none of them ever seem to go anywhere. >

To expand on what /u/Man_Bear_Beaver said - paxlovid is an absolute gamechanger and could (if actually used...) prevent around 60-80% of the hospitalizations, depending on the study.
The evidence is there, that's why it has also been approved by (at least, don't know about other countries) the EU and the US to be used for treating covid.
As long as it's being taken as soon as the first symptoms appear/you test positive, it's going to improve chances by a lot.
Sadly, for some reason physicians seem to be massively lagging behind and don't prescribe it often enough to high-risk-patients. 
More details can be found in the related papers, for example this one. >

Paxlovid does seem to be working great for those who can take it. 
The funny/ not funny thing is it costs a fortune per dose and the govt pays for it. But the paxlovid recipe is just 2 existing antivirals for hiv that have been around for years and are cheap generic drugs repackaged in a single pill and re patented. 
I read in india they just give you 2 pills of those antivirals in the same box instead of paying for paxlovid. >

With some drugs price gouging is absolutely ridiculous, no question - especially in the US. Though since I'm not from the US, I can't really comment on the specifics. 
However, your claim is not quite correct - while ritonavir is an already known medication, it's primarily a supporting agent for the main drug nirmatrelvir, which is an original development.
Considering the insane cost of hospitalizations, I'd guess it's still quite a positive trade for the governments buying it. 
If somebody can link some comprehensive numbers, that would be awesome. On a quick search I couldn't even find the government-price for germany, any details are welcome. >

Probably a few will be safe at dosage. Most likely zero will prove efficacy.  Finding compounds that inhibit things isn't difficult. 
This is the problem with cell culture studies.  They aren't news worthy because the vast, vast majority don't actually work in animal models, let alone in humans.  There is simply too much work to be done on these for anyone to be excited. >

Unfortunately our glass sponge reefs were broadly destroyed by trawling.
There are recovering reefs (the protected areas south of Haida Gwaii are making good progress and new reefs are found occasionally), but they are likely a fraction of the size they once were.
Hopefully this sends a message to more of us how crucial it is to have a holistic, broad spectrum, comprehensive approach to preserving the oceans. Every single species matters, all the way from sponges, to mussels, up to whales.
Glass sponge reefs are also very ancient and beautiful — they’re very special. >

while true can't we grow them? I know that won't help the wild but it may help us. plus, even if there was enough, going and digging it all up for covid use prob isn't ideal for the environment either >

That's a great question, and probably something that's actively being researched. They are crucial to our coast's biodiversity and fish populations (they're nurseries for many rockfish species, huge amounts of shrimp live in them, they create living substrate for countless species in places where it's otherwise quite barren, etc), so I imagine marine biologists are keen to find more ways to support their flourishing. The government of BC has made decent efforts to support this by creating protected areas where reefs are known to exist, and the DFO actively surveys to find new reefs (new ones were just found over summer in Bute Inlet, for example).
Growing them doesn't seem trivial or feasible because they live in special conditions, 200-1000M under the sea. We're not even sure why they form reefs here, as they don't anywhere else in the world. They're common around the planet in that they grow everywhere, but they're relatively sparse in occurrence. Here along the northwest shelf of the continent, something creates ideal conditions for them to grow large, in reefs, and really thrive.
They're actually pretty incredible organisms. They were thought to be extinct up until recently, too. >

I have a feeling if there's a product with a target market of literally 8 billion who could even buy multiple of that product for you, the profit incentive will prod SOMEONE into finding a way to grow them commercially, lol.
But interesting post none the less thank you. >

Thanks for reading it and thinking about it! I think you're right though; our fisheries will collapse if we don't heal our oceans. We will find technologies to assist recovery, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if cultivating glass sponge was part of that strategy. >

If this covid cure has legs it could be a kill two birds with one stone situation where serious investment means programs that can follow into rehabitation. >

How can I get the horse version? >

It’ll be released after all the fishes have their batteries replaced. >

Chances that the molecule has therapeutic efficacy at non-toxic levels and isn't biodegrade upon ingestion: 0%
Chances the Pharma industry will spin their wheels trying to make it work for a decade and then charge people for more than the research cost: 100%