Large clinical trials like what you’re describing are very expensive to run (averaging about $50 million each) and fail about 90% of the time. Unless the government is handing out tons of free money to finance those trials, they’re unlikely to be run.
Now, in an era where government is throwing mountains of money at anything and everything (except you and me), could they have spared some cash to run such trials? Sure. And I wouldn’t be against that. But I don’t expect drug companies to volunteer to pick up the tab to try random drugs and protocols in the hopes that something, somewhere pans out.
Well let’s not dance around it. There is enough evidence already published, small and varied from around the world, to study both Ivermectin+ and HCQ+ as an early treatment. Maybe they will fail. But doesn’t seem like either of those would cause harm (except maybe to the placebo arms). Zinc, D3, Vit C, azithromycin or erethromycin (depending on the patient) and one of those two generic drugs. Taken upon diagnoses or first symptoms.
The outcome study should be the same as with vaccines. Does taking these reduce risk of severity of infection, viral load, hospitalization and/or death?
Should be fairly simple, and fairly cheap even at $50 million a pop given what we’re spending. But there is no real money to be made on generic stuff like that, and if it were shown to work nobody would have enrolled (or stayed enrolled) in a vaccine trial.