*About the zinc issue:
Taking zinc is highly recommended, as it has strong antiviral activity. Moreover it is being reported that chloroquine is actually successful because it is an ionophore of zinc, ie it increases its concentration in the cells.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
Please, you don't have to read further than the title to realise that at this stage this is irrelevant:
"Zn
2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity
In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses
in Cell Culture"
In Vitro = In Glass = "
in a test tube" and
In Cell Culture = "
in isolated, individual money kidney epithelial cells* in a tissue culture bottle" i.e. in an isolated laboratory setting, not in a whole living organism, let alone in a
controlled, double blinded clinical trial.
If one doesn't have the background to put the implicit context around a biochemistry paper so that one understands what it is saying, what it is not saying and what this means (or does not mean) for real world therapeutic applicability then this is
not the time to be trying to read papers like this in isolation.
Would you react the same to a paper titled "
Cl- Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Blocks the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture"? Because I can assure that the science behind that title, made up just now by me, is good. It would work, it would inhibit coronaviruses. In fact we (almost) all know that already, but if you don't know why my imaginary paper holds out no therapeutic possibilities, then you most definitely don't have the beginnings of what it takes to read the actual real paper cited and know how to interpret it in context.
The one thing that paper
most emphatically does not say is:
Taking zinc is highly recommended, as it has strong antiviral activity.
That
you, not the paper, have made that recommendation is unsupportable by that paper.
*Vero E6 cell line, as cited in that paper.