3 ms·

There's certainly a good reason not to do it. Even discounting the bizarre and arcane nature of medical billing in the United States, this level of care is sure

There's certainly a good reason not to do it. Even discounting the bizarre and arcane nature of medical billing in the United States, this level of care is surely costing someone a great deal of money. That doesn't mean it's not worth it, but to say there is "no good reason not to do it" is trivially untrue.

Voloskaya 7y ago
> this level of care is surely costing someone a great deal of money. This level of care prevents spending much more money monitoring/treating many more people that this patient might have been in contact with otherwise (some of them being doctors and expert on this kind of disease that we don't want to have to put in isolation for a week when we need them the most).
nexuist 7y ago
> this level of care is surely costing someone a great deal of money. Do you think it costs more to operate the robot than the robot company will make from the good PR this sort of headline generates for them? How many more hospitals and doctors will invest in the field of robotics and this company specifically if they can say it was them to helped get this virus under control? Not to mention the ISOPOD manufacturer, who will no doubt be fielding new orders after this article. There is no good reason not to do it because, even if this turns out to be a slightly more harmful flu, the lessons, experience, and data gained from using these procedures and technology will enable a better response the next time something similar happens, and next time might be the "real deal." To hell with financial responsibility if stopping a global pandemic is on the line!