2 ms·
Earlier in this thread it's stipulated that the bottleneck is not the number of ventilators but the trained people to operate them. As such, training more opera
by ALittleLight 7y ago
Earlier in this thread it's stipulated that the bottleneck is not the number of ventilators but the trained people to operate them. As such, training more operators is an obvious solution, and allowing the new operators to be substandard will mean we can get more operators faster.
This pretty much dissolves your only real objection, that we'd be keeping a ventilator occupied that would otherwise be in use. Nope. The solution to a deficit of ventilators is producing more - not letting people die without them.
Generally, you are trying to invent reasons and restrictions to make trying to train ventilator-operators seem like a bad idea rather than understanding or advancing how the idea might be viable. An example of this is how you acknowledge that training other medical adjacent professionals (e.g. vetrenarians) would likely work. Great, you agree the idea could work. If you expect that our capacity will be overwhelmed then presumably you think we should training additional operators. Instead of reaching that conclusion you imagine reasons to object to the idea though.
A SWE would likely be worse than a vet after a bootcamp. That's a good reason to have some entry requirements to the bootcamp and those requirements could be relaxed or strengthened depending on where we expect demand to be in 30 days relative to supply. A SWE through a 30-day bootcamp would likely be better than nothing.
The other main constraint you've imagined is that they would need to save more people than they kill to be worthwhile. No, they'd need to save more people than would die without them. If it would be better to just struggle to breathe than have an amateur operator, that would be an argument against them.
Your credentials, whatever they are, haven't equipped you to clearly communicate your reasons for opposing this idea. As I mentioned, it seems like you actually support some version of it.
- omar_a1 7y agoI'm sorry, I still haven't seen your empirical research and relevant credentials. So, to be clear, you can blindly assert that sending incompetent pseudo-medics to perform invasive procedures will be beneficial, and assert that claim with absolute certainty and zero evidence. But when I explain that, no, medicine is more complicated than you think, and back that up with concrete examples of how that is factually accurate, it's purely imagined. What a quaint little world you must live in.
- ALittleLight 7y agoYou seem like you're not making real arguments, so I'll leave the conversation at this.
- marnett 7y agoAs the contrarian, can you at least enlighten us to what, in your opinion, would be the best strategy to proactively address potential bottlenecks? I think we can all agree, career shaming aside, that medical professionals and engineers of all varieties actively participate in mindsets geared towards problem solving. So in a hypothetical situation, where existing permanent healthcare infrastructure is at capacity, field hospitals are setup and existing medical professional staff need to be divided amongst the existing and newly supplemented infrastructure, what is your suggestion to save the most lives? This exercise of sharing ideas, informing, critiquing is what this forum is for. Disagree and casting shame for a lack of first-hand professional experience is not educational and it’s not what this forum embodies. I want to be as informed as possible so I can call BS when politicians say “nothing at all could have been done.”
- omar_a1 7y agoI fail to see how explaining that, "Yes, you need to know medicine to practice medicine, or people will die" is considered being contrarian. Would you rather just revel in ignorance? So here's my idea: stop treating invasive medical procedures as something that can be trivially learned in a short amount of time. In short, drop the God complex. You're out of your depth here. The need for action doesn't mean acting foolish. Irrational behavior in the name of "just doing something" will needlessly deplete more resources.
- marnett 7y ago> The need for action doesn't mean acting foolish. Irrational behavior in the name of "just doing something" will needlessly deplete more resources. I am genuinely interested in what your suggestion would be though. This is me asking. What would you do to address in the hypothetical I proposed?