It's rather telling that these criteria only came up after the first negative trials of HCQ. The study that arguably kicked off the whole debated from Didier Ra

It's rather telling that these criteria only came up after the first negative trials of HCQ. The study that arguably kicked off the whole debated from Didier Raoult does not meet your criteria. It does include azithromycin, but it is on already hospizalized patients and doesn't include zinc. There are also quite a lot of other HCQ studies, many with azithromycin and some also given very early before significant symptoms appeared (see one example here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638). They also didn't find any benefit to HCQ. The insistence on these very specific criteria is just blatantly moving the goalposts. There simply isn't enough indications that HCQ works, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't to justify even more large studies than it already got. This is arguably a huge misallocation of resources based on very flimsy initial evidence.