How can the investigators (doctors, nurses, et al

How can the investigators (doctors, nurses, et al actually giving treatments to patients in the trial) not be aware of efficacy?

Below is my WAG as to how trial results will be viewed:

In the B trial, all patients get the same SOC and 1/2 also get B.

Docs already have a pretty good idea of effectiveness of Rems over the last number of months so that is a given, we will give it as X. We know for those on ventilators this X amount should be darn near 0 as all Rems has shown from what I heard was a shortening of hospital stay, not a decrease in mortality, especially for anyone with more than very minor symptoms, certainly not for those on ventilators.

So if trial seems to show only X percent show improvement, most likely it is simply due to SOC and B didn't do much of anything.

If greater than X, and we give that number as Y, than likely Y-X is the percentage of patients that improved due to Brilacidin (at the very least).

if Y is extremely high, than one would say Brialcidin is the leading reason so many are getting cured and SOC basically did nothing.

Another major factor will be the viral load results. The SOC should not be providing any lowering (or very little lowering) of the viral load as I am under the impression it doesn't kill the virus and thus hasn't shown a decrease in the death rate of patients receiving it versus those not given it. If the percentage of a dramatic viral load decrease is noted and it is near 50% or slightly less, than one would think that entire amount is due to B since the SOC only patients (50%) wouldn't have fared well at all.

So nobody is going to have to tell investigators if B is working, the numbers will tell them pretty clearly if B is working and SOC is just along for the ride.