saying...HCQ is not a recommended treatment. On the other hand, the linked article had positive things to say about Merck's and Pfizer's anti-viral medications...and for the latter drug "Paxlovid" from Pfizer, the following excerpts caught my eye...
"Paxlovid is a protease inhibitor antiviral therapy made up of a medicine called PF-07321332 and the HIV drug ritonavir. PF-07321332 was developed by Pfizer; it interferes with the ability of the coronavirus to replicate. Ritonavir slows the breakdown of PF-0732332 so that it remains active longer at higher amounts."
To me this shows a drug being developed with a focus on the COVID-19 pathogen...including another drug (Ritonavir) that helps the primary inhibitor remain effective for a longer period of time...probably something that Hydroxychloroquine does not have...and might explain why it hasn't proven to be effective...even if 'theory' indicates it 'might be'. HCQ might be cheap and widely available, but if it doesn't work, then reliance on it can be "Very Expensive" in terms of "Morbidity and Mortality"...no?
And this...which also answers "Protagonist"'s question...
"The prospect of having an oral antiviral to combat COVID-19 is exciting, but is not a substitute for getting vaccinated. The COVID vaccine remains more important than ever. We need layers of defense against this viral threat. Hopefully oral antiviral medications will be part of that defense."
Again...thanks for showing the value of well-sourced links.
NOTE: None of the foregoing had anything to do with politics...