The main thing for me is that a number of proper studies with control and double-blind and all that have repeatedly concluded that a) HCQ does not produce any improvement in recovery from C19 and b) is actually dangerous to take if you don't have any of the approved reasons for taking it... I tend to give them far more credence than a random graph that shows some kind of correlation (if it's accurate and true - cos it gives no sources and doesn't say what it means for a country to be "using" hcq) between countries that do and don't use it but which doesn't allow for any other factors whatsoever such as age of population, pop density and so on.
Also, today I was laughing at Trump when he said "Our case numbers are wrongly high cos we do more testing" and then seconds later said "our mortality rate per case is best in the world" - which is only true cos the case numbers are so high, that fucking idiot Trump said that the very same stat was wrong when he didn't like it but right when it was used to calculate something he did. Then I come on dissensus and find Mixed Biscuits who has spent the last three months claiming that the UK mortality rate from C19 is way too high... and now he uses that high rate to argue that the UK is making a mistake in not using HCQ. So which is it MB, is that stat right or wrong (and if you calculate some optimum "correct" value for it that leaves UK in the red on that graph and still just about supports your claim that UK has over-counted I will spot that).