For what I consider unbiased explanations of all the scientific studies and data current out there I Liston to on you tube Medcram videos by DR Roger Seheult. He does fairly often COVID-19 update videos.

His latest one is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2A2xNLWR4

Also in past he did some fairly good explanation of how COVID-19 works and why people was hopeful for Chloroquine/hydroChloroquine. I think more medical studies still need to be done on drug but think people need to take a step back and wait for more data instead of declaring it not effective at all or very effective as there simply not enough data at the moment for either conclusion. It was wrong for fox news to have someone on in past claiming it was 100% effective which defiantly not proven and also the study that people citing saying it reduces your chance of surviving is also very questionable.

In this video starting 1 min 44 sec he shows the science behind why there was some hope for the drug be effective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M&list=PLQ_IRFkDInv-NvRRUN0aqe51sMs188k8z&index=29&t=0s

and in this video he shows exactly how covid-19 works starting at 3min and 38 secounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeh054-Hx1U&list=PLQ_IRFkDInv-NvRRUN0aqe51sMs188k8z&index=31&t=0s

France first believed it worked (they tried it on very mild cases, who recovered faster).
New study shows it doesnt (when used on people with symptoms, hospitalised).

China tried it, reported it doesnt work.
Brazil tried it, reported it doesnt work, and increased mortality rate (people had heart attacks)
US tried it, used on military vets, noticed increased mortality rate.

So far, its been tried a few places (probably more than these 4) and non of the places kept on useing it.

It appears it doesnt work (for covid19).

I think more than one person dying specifically from the side effects of that drug in very small sample sizes is more than enough to look for other cures. There really is no point wasting time and resources into one specific drug that has already killed plenty of people when there are hundreds of other potential drugs to study.

If a drug kills people it better be super effective in the vast majority of other cases, but so far it's at best questionable. That is just not good enough.

The drug itself was worth a closer inspection, because it has several mechanisms (not all of which are well understood) how it can inhibit virus reproduction and it has shown so in in vitro tests. But it seems the dose needed to reach high enough (Hydroxy-)Chloroquine concentrations in cells/tissue targeted by SARS-CoV-2 - especially in the middle/later stages of the illness - is too much for the body/the heart to handle. Additionally there now is good evidence that targeted tissue is present in many organs including the heart, so treatment with a drug that can negatively affect the heart function seems too risky in critical cases.

There still might be a "golden window" in the earlier stages of the disease, when not as many virus particles are around, in which more tolerable doses of HQC/QC could be effective in lowering the amount of successful reproductions. Maybe that's what the first (limited, not peer reviewed) study picked up on.

Germany is a federal republic much like the US. In Germany Angela Merkel has regular meetings with all heads of the individual states to discuss the collective strategy against corona. The result is a unified strategy with all states agreeing and enacting similar rules in unison. Of course there are slight differences in the actions taken but overall everyone agrees with the exact same strategy and supports it fully, The smaller and less affected states are abiding by the same rules as the most affected states. As much as I hate federalism it works alright in my country.

In the US local governments cannot even agree with their own state, let alone the federal government. Has there even been any attempt to have a unified strategy? I think the US might be doing federalism wrong. Or maybe the state governments in Germany aren't comprised half by morons.

Let me be clear from my last statement, I am in no way saying it a cure but rather it may be useful in treatment in some cases and that it worth further study.  As Lafiel said it seem the usefulness window is most likely only in the early stages and not useful if you do not find out you have it till you already in the later stages.  

In this video as 22min and 27 secound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFRwnhfWXxo&list=PLQ_IRFkDInv-NvRRUN0aqe51sMs188k8z&index=16&t=0s

He talked about a study out that using hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin has shown promising results when used in the early stage of contagion. 

My only point was that while it most defiantly not a magic cure that don't mean that under the right situations hydroxychloroquine  cant be useful for treating some patients and it still worth letting the scientist continue to do the studies and see what they find.

Proof that the lockdowns are effective, with maths:

(Also a comparison to the Swine Flu pandemic 10 years ago as well as other epidemics of this century.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnQcbAKWkPE

Cuomo revealed some results from the antibody testl. 13.9% New Yorkers tested positive in this test.

NYC is ~21%

Long Island  ~16%

Westchester ~11%

Upstate NY ~3%

Blacks ~22%

Latinos ~22%

Other ~22%

Whites ~9%

Asians ~7%

He also said that the State has not counted at home deaths into the 15k deaths.  So with bursing home and hospital deaths the rate of death is 0.5% based on the antibody test right now. Will probably end up being more than that when all the deaths from homes and the deaths still happening at hospitals and nursing homes  have been accounted for. 

And that apparently was an igG test, and these particular antibodies take a while to produce. Conceivably, the number of people who have been infected could be significantly higher than this at the moment of testing.

Of course, the question of whether this is an accurate sample (for instance, you could be testing particularly exposed people... but then, it's doubtful you're testing more than one per household, where cases will tend to cluster), and which is the percentage of false positives and false negatives (although it might be assuring to know the latter seems more common), remain.