3 ms·
> That's not to say your idea is bad! It's definitely good and worth exploring in the future. There will be time to explore how to have smarter tools that can b
by marnett 7y ago
> That's not to say your idea is bad! It's definitely good and worth exploring in the future. There will be time to explore how to have smarter tools that can be used with a less general skillset can be developed. There will also be time to explore how to develop specialized and narrow curricula for such things - itself not a trivial task.
This thread isn’t about automating medical professionals responsibilities one task at a time, or attempting to step on their egos. I’m as proud of their title, their coat, and their debt as they are.
If a pandemic respiratory virus is not the time to “consider exploring” this idea, when is? When people are left to die in their homes because the ambulances stop taking calls...?
We are, of course, just shooting out ideas of grandeur. A reactive strategy will be maintained, people will die, and everyone will throw their hands up in the sky and say “nothing else could have been done. March simply was not the time to think about COVID-specific medical operation efficiencies. There will, however, be a time to explore...”
- Kalium 7y agoI'm trying to suggest, as gently as possible, that a time when our medical system is verging on being flooded may not be the best of all possible moments imaginable to add a significant resource-consumer in the form of an experimental mass training program. I am attempting to encourage more systemic thinking and greater consideration of context. I understand that some may disagree with some or all of these arguments. Please accept my deepest apologies if I have in any way seemed to imply that the current reactive strategy is an ideal long-term solution. I do not in any way think this. Don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can clarify for you - I frequently fail to express myself as well as I'd like.