|
|
|
|
|
by kevingadd
2285 days ago
|
|
You're overlooking additional options like "The patient would have survived without a ventilator, but one was used to improve their condition and it turned out it was a defective GM ventilator because who needs regulations" Also "the ventilator was fine but 12 months later it's still in service - who's going to throw out a working ventilator? - and now it's killing people because who needs regulations" You can't just throw out all the regulations. "Any treatment" is not better than No Treatment. You have to identify which regulations are appropriate to discard in the situation - many, sure, but not all. You wouldn't want someone 3D printing your ventilator with materials that will off-gas toxic fumes and kill you when you would have survived (barely) without the ventilator... |
|
It needs to be emphasized over and over that this is a national emergency. Think "War". Would you rather have a surgeon operate your wounded brain matter with rusted implements or watch you die?
When youre living in a city where every hotel, every gymnasium and every school is full of ill people going through pneumonia - I am sure you would change your mind.
Another way to think is - if COVID-19 had a mortality rate of 100%, and R0 of 3; what would you do about regulations? We are lucky this virus isn't as deadly as Ebola (50% CFR) and as contageous as measles (R0 6-7). If there is death to humanity looming in the future, that's the virus its waiting for a human contact in some bat cave. What regulations then?