3 ms·
Knowledge/experience/expertise are not readily available. And I would find it hard to believe that a person would be able to churn out a piece of technology wor
by alexbanks 6y ago
Knowledge/experience/expertise are not readily available. And I would find it hard to believe that a person would be able to churn out a piece of technology worth using, first try, with tools they've never used before. So in terms of your "hard to come by" question, I would say "A depth of experience at a moments notice" as a response.
"Crisis" seems to be a scenario that your methods might not work well in. Groups of people were at risk of death. Would implementing a solution increase their chances of death? If you're continuing to monitor patients as you normally would without this tech, isn't worst case just "doesn't improve"? And isn't best case "We caught more problems than we would by normal monitoring" ?
- im_down_w_otp 6y agoI can't really tell what you're advocating here. Using both unproven/unfit technologies and foregoing safety processes is worthwhile risk because the people doing it also lack the expertise to do otherwise? The "worst case" that can come out of false positives & false negatives in safety-critical conditions has a bunch of dimensions depending on an enormous number of environmental and contextual conditions. There's no PFMEA nor DFMEA supplied in the OP to indicate how one should consider their choices.
- alexbanks 6y agoBest of luck.