Based on unpublished data, and the article neither names the drug nor says anything about the kind of study this claim is based on.
Not something to get excited about.
Not something to get excited about.
Unless I misunderstand the article a lot, this comes from the head of an established hospital, not some Alex Jones equivalent!
Sure, it can still turn out to not work. And "90%" may well not be reproducible. But I'd bet a minor sum on this having a real effect.
Better wait for the article.
How quickly should testing of a drug expand? That depends on a balance of risks. The faster you go, the more danger there is of the drug having bad side-effects while you're figuring out how safe and effective it is. The slower you go, the more you delay the possible benefits if the drug ends up working. Right now the potential benefits of such a drug are enormous -- or, put another way, each day of delay is a minor catastrophe. That should tilt the scales a lot.
Sometimes the careful, cautious thing to do is to go fast!
I think there's too much hate on that Hydroxycloroquine study and its shortcomings, the risks of testing that are small (though not insignificant and especially not for those with light symptoms) compared to the potential benefits.
It's not a vaccine but it seems possible to prevent infection and possibly halt illness. That is, if it doesn't have any yet unknown, horrible side-effects.