3 ms·

Is what I wrote wrong? Is it not true that in the beginning they saw an increase in fatalities when treating with certain kinds of steroids?

• rscho 6y ago
  I never downvote, so not me. BTW yes, they said that. And now we see that using them and trying to keep people breathing by themselves, we do much better (big surprise). I do a lot of medical research and I am fully confident in saying that to decide to go against the grain based on preliminary data is irresponsible in medicine. As a personal note, the attitude of medical researchers and the loosening of ethical and legal boundaries pertaining to research I saw in the first wave make me puke.
  • Lewton 6y ago
    > I never downvote, so not me Appreciate it (and your reply!) I think the issue was that most of the decisions made, over-reliance on intubation, withholding steroids, etc where made in the beginning, in places were the hospitals were overloaded and there was this sense of urgency and panic. Then some random study is showing a 18% fatality rate in severe cases with steroids Vs 14% without, giving the impression that this virus works like no other
    • rscho 6y ago
      In my opinion, reverting to more usual intubation practices is really a major improvement. For some reason, people tend to forget that mechanical ventilation is not a treatment but merely a supportive measure. > some random study is showing a 18% fatality rate in severe cases with steroids Vs 14% without, giving the impression that this virus works like no other Exactly. And I think that this goes to show that the current dynamics of medical research are highly toxic. The synergy between the 'publish or perish' motto and the myriad of Excel spreadsheet warriors who go on to become influential professors kills a lot of people.