[harikb]

> We created this software on a request from healthcare staff

If this is some small town hospital in Srilanka, the choice is between an unaffordable certified solution and not having any monitoring. If Medical software didn’t bleed them dry, they wouldn’t go this route.

> disruption should happen slowly, carefully, and safely

Disruption always happens this way - same way Uber broke existing laws. Yes, few people will die. But this isn’t surprising when the alternative is even worse.

[kalleth]

> the choice is between an unaffordable certified solution and not having any monitoring.

No, this isn't _necessarily_ the choice. Without a "false sense of security" that an imperfect monitoring system might instil, you have nurses and doctors actually doing rounds and checking their patients.

> Disruption always happens this way - same way Uber broke existing laws. Yes, few people will die. But this isn’t new when the alternative is even worse.

This is an absolutely horrible viewpoint to have. People dying because of "disruption" so a few companies can make a few more dollars is _never_ acceptable.

[hinkley]

It's funny-sad watching my fellow tech people debate civics and public policy and talk about how often "Something must be done, this is 'something', so we will do it" exhibits itself. Everyone nods or cheers as if we have some leg to stand on.

When it comes to solving technical problems? We are ever so happy to do exactly the same thing.

Any solution is better than no solution. Except when no solution causes people to stop trying to delegate an important responsibility. Which is quite frequently.

A crap solution crowds the problem space. If a better solution is possible, it now has to defend itself against the incumbent. Explain why it is more expensive, why people should be bothered to switch.

If you can't do something well, then for pity's sake let someone else try. Log away every cost of not doing it at all and then when you can justify doing it well, build your pitch.

[derangedHorse]

I think we can only ascertain whether this is a good or bad thing if there was data on the amount of valid abnormalities caught by this system vs having nurses and doctors having to do rounds. We also have to take into consideration the fact that they may run out of money for disposable protective gear, or even have the amount of protective gear available for purchase drastically reduced. From his disclaimer in the post it also seems like they're using this on top of their typical monitoring so that the staff can have insight in between visits

[formercoder]

Indeed. It’s like rubber gloves during this pandemic. People think once they’re on they’re protected - you only gain increased protection if you know what you’re doing.

[hinkley]

I die a little every time a store employee wearing gloves gives me change from the register. This is not better.

[harikb]

You are the one who brought up “disruption”. In this particular case, someone created a free/affordable solution for the hospital. I am not sure how you can read “make a few more dollars”

[matz1]

Yes in the worst case people could die, that is distruption, that's the reality. The sooner you accept that the better, or you going to have a hard time.