The infection started sometime in December, with first hospital reports late December. For the infection to really spread and people to start dying, it takes a while, so in December you would not expect more than a few, or a few dozen covid-deaths. Certainly less than you would be able to detect statistically. Even first quarter 2020 deaths would likely not be very helpful as such, as you'd expect less deaths from traffic accidents, air pollution, etc.
The first known infected individual reported symptoms in early December. He was connected to the wet market. But his wife, who reportedly never went to that market, developed symptoms a few days later. Within a few weeks, doctors were reporting a cluster of cases of viral pneumonia in Wuhan, including two doctors themselves. Hindsight is 20/20, but a later analysis by the the NEJM found clear evidence of human-human transmission beginning by the middle of December.
Yet on Dec. 31, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission or of infection of medical staff. Two days later, a study published in the Lancet of 41 infected individuals, found that about a third of them had no known connection with the wet market. The study--again, this was published on Jan. 2-- concluded "evidence so far indicates human transmission for 2019-nCoV. We are concerned that 2019-nCoV could have acquired the ability for efficient human transmission." But a day later, the WMHC repeats its claim of "no clear evidence of human-human transmission." Two days later, again, the same statement. Again, on Jan. 11. Regional meetings of Hubei officials began in the middle of January, and there was no mention at all of coronavirus.
The genome sequence was reported to WHO on Jan. 3. But AFAIK, it was not made available to other scientists until a week later. And even as late as Jan. 14, WHO maintained there was "no clear evidence of human-human transmission." This was after all the studies clearly indicating there was such evicence, and the infection of doctors, including LI Wenliang, whose hospitalization two days earlier could hardly have been a more obvious sign.
Tell me, how do you suppose an antibiotic that kills bacteria is decreasing the amount of viral RNA?
Technically, that's not what they claimed. They said it enhanced the effect of HCQ. In some patients, bacterial infections are likely to be a problem, detracting from the individual's resources to fight the virus.
Also, our knowledge of antibiotic action is not so complete that we can completely rule out antiviral activity. Azithromycin, the antibiotic used in their study, like many antibiotics, binds to one of the bacterial ribosomes, interfering with protein synthesis. These antibiotics are not supposed to bind in the same manner to ribosomes of eukaryotic cells; if they did, they would be toxic to the cells, and defeat their purpose. But all we know about azrithomycin is that it doesn't bind to eukaryotic ribosomes in a way that interferes with protein synthesis by these cells. It's not out of the question that they could interact with these ribosomes in a way that would interfere with the virus's use of them in replicating itself.
Gautret now claims he's performed another study, on 80 patients, and that four out of five responded favorably. I don't think the paper itself has yet been released, but others familiar with some of the details are criticizing it heavily. Again, I'm not touting this drug. I doubt it will turn out to be helpful. But many of these patients are in a nothing-to-lose situation.