[alwa]

While that’s true, I worry about glorifying too much the desperation of the whole situation.

If the same patients had arrived at a pace consistent with normal operations, wouldn’t you expect the outcomes to have been better?

Normally cross-checking medications and dosages saves lives by reducing medical errors. Normally I’d rather not be operated on by a surgeon so strung out that, like the author describes, his mind can’t make sense of words on a page.

There are times when the problem vastly outmatches the resources you have to bring to bear. Where getting things done at all is more important than making sure they’re done absolutely perfectly. But to me the lesson is in deciding which compromises will save the most lives.

Which has to weigh even heavier on the mind of somebody like the doctor here, who understands that “the very best we could with what we had” is far short of “the best medical care we’re capable of.”

[lukan]

"Normally I’d rather not be operated on by a surgeon so strung out that"

Normally no one wants to be part of a "mass casualty event" but if one ends up in one, I would be glad if competent people do the best they can and not stop on arbitary regulations meant for normal times.

[alwa]

Absolutely, and I hope that I didn’t give the impression otherwise. In times of crisis I’m immensely grateful that most everyone will step up beyond their normal responsibilities.

I’m even more grateful that leaders like the author have spent their careers developing the experience, instinct, discernment, credibility, and fortitude to make the right adaptations under pressure.

I’d even agree with the original comment that a good leader trusts their people and gets out of their way. I just think that manifests differently in steady-state operations than during crisis.