[fmjrey]

Again people not on the front line criticise those who are.

If you get infected, would you take it, or would you wait and see the result of the full study?

Now imagine having to take that decision not just for your life, but for your patients, and all the 200 staff that work in your hospital.

Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?

[yellowapple]

> Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?

Tell the ambulance driver to turn on the siren and party lights and have a nice day.

Like, there are already exemptions for ambulances driving "recklessly" as long as they're indicating (via siren and lights) that they're doing so in an emergency situation.

On that note, though, if the ambulance is driving too recklessly it might do more harm than good to the patient. It wouldn't necessarily be the police officer's place to make that determination, but it could certainly be a contributing factor for reprimanding the ambulance driver should the patient end up more injuries coming out of the ambulance than one did getting in.

Overall, a pretty poor analogy IMO, even if I do (to an extent) agree with your point.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Being "on the front lines" does not render your science immune to criticism. That's just not how it works. Doing good science is the only defense against rational criticism.

You're basically asking us to take his word for it because he happens to be treating covid patients. That is not a thing.

[ceejayoz]

> Again people not on the front line criticise those who are.

The people on the front lines often don't have a great view of the entire battlefield.

There's a good reason the general is typically at a command post a ways back from it.