The previous meta post primarily focused on answers even though "questions" was in the title, and only one of the answers there has a pattern of voting that seems like community agreement: https://medicalsciences.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1140/8728
People need information now, not next year, so for us to strictly enforce the policy on such answers would be pedantic and unhelpful, in my opinion.
It seems reasonable in the near term to continue to be a bit flexible on answers: to allow answers based on prior experiences, biological knowledge of other coronaviruses (in particular SARS and MERS), and other respiratory pandemics (in particular influenza). These sources can provide reasonable "best-guesses" while we deal with an ever-shifting situation.
I think we can also be slightly more flexible on medical advice questions if they can be interpreted and answered in terms of public health advice. There are medical guidelines for the general public released by authoritative figures and designed for consumption by the general public. I think it's reasonable to direct people to those guidelines even while we refuse (as we always have and should have) to answer individual questions directly. That is, we should not and cannot say "you should do X" or "you have/do not have covid-19 symptoms", but we can continue to say "the WHO says ________", "the CDC guidelines are _______", etc - this is the same sort of advice provided by reputable news sources, and doesn't involve anything like a doctor-patient relationship.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to catch these under a single community wiki canonical answer.
I don't have much patience for the "is this a cure"-type speculation questions without prior research. I do think it's reasonable for questions to be asked about the progress of clinical research into therapies as long as the asker has put some effort into it as well (at a minimum, citing some popular press literature about a treatment, for example; not just "hey I wonder if lazzer beems would solve Corona").
I'd also be in favor of closing most of the "prognostication"-type questions (when will this end, how many will die, can this be stopped, etc) as primarily opinion-based. Questions about how these estimates are derived may be useful, if they contain some prior research and/or citations to scientific estimates and models.