One of the ways to improve your comfort and speed is to optimise what you choose to type. It is kvite easy to avoid using non-home-row pinkies at all, as there are reasonable replacements for the letters q, z, ;: and /? in casual English writing.
Using s for z is the easiest. Indeed, "UK" spellings like organise and euthanise hardly raise an eyebrow elsewhere. Cognates of words that are spelled with -ize, -ization in US English are spelled with -s- in Germanic languages anyway. It is but a short step therefrom to sise, sissle, etc. Prise for prize is not too bad, since it is Preis in German. (Of course it wouldn't do to replace z by s in _German_ text, but the German z is not the English z -- it is more like the English t, etymologically. This post addresses only English text.)
Using kv for qu and k for q (when not followed by u) may seem slightly more exotic, but there is a strong precedent for it in the Scandinavian languages. Indeed, Irak for Iraq was once common in English too. Why not ku or kw for qu,. Well, ku looks illiterate, and kw is best retained for commercial nomenclature (Kwality Kleening Solutions), where it is already alarmingly rampant. Besides, kv is easier to type than either ku or kw.
Semicolon, colon -- well, they are on the way out from modern usage, so we're told -- so we may not need to worry about them. Usually an emdash or just plain comma fills in adekvately.
The forward slash -- Avoid it and-or make do with hyphen.
The kvestion mark -- This is the biggie! Often, a sentence is identifiable as a kvery without having to tack on a kvestion mark. In Japanese, the kvestion mark is not used for kvestion-sentences that end in the particle ka, since it is considered redundant. The kvestions that don't end in ka are very few. Nevertheless they exist.
So how could we signal a kvestion without using a kvestion mark p. Lisp users are known to use the letter p (for predicate). Unlike them, we would just use the letter but not pronounce it. Since the letter p kva word doesn't have a competing meaning, using it as a sentence-ending punctuation is not ambiguous. If this is still considered too outlandish, one could use the digraph ,. (comma followed by period). This is not ambiguous either, and even looks somewhat like a ? with the two parts laid down side by side. Actually, p looks like ? too, if you skvint a bit.
(I'm only half kidding. For all but the most official and-or officious text, these replacements are usable, will go a long way toward preserving your poor little fingers, and would not impede understanding.)