> Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long hist

> Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks they face? The term is "compassionate use". It's drug approval for patients where the drug is not fully tested. It almost certainly wouldn't be approved for healthcare workers, but it might be approved for people who need ventilators. The basic idea is that the situation is so dire - all of the normal medical options have been exhausted - that patients are legally allowed to essentially experiment on themselves.