Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

uchicagomedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#21

Post by lonelappde »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #15
joshgel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better would be randomized experimental data that this was better than an alternative... 'It works' can mean lots of different things...

It's an excellent point. Learning is not the same as science, and we need randomized trials to actually be sure of anything. Unfortunately, in the middle of a pandemic, that's not going to happen with enough speed to prevent a lot of people dying. The perfect can be the enemy of the good enough. We don't have to guess or learn about the mass of an electron; that's been well-established through great lab work. But not…

RCT is not all of science. RCT is just one (very powerful) tool for making information quantifiable and for making decisions under uncertainty.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#23

Post by mrfusion »

IlyaMoroshkin wrote: post #17

With treatment so simple, we have effectively removed the healthcare system as a bottleneck on the rest of society. I think we can safely reopen fully now and treat any serious cases using our existing healthcare systems in combination with this kind of new knowledge. The longer we 'suppress the curve', when we are already far below hospital system capacity, the more economic and social damage we cause unnecessarily.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Here’s an article that puts sources and numbers on your thought:

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-i...

I’d be curious to hear counterpoints. I could be wrong. It does anyone think this will go away with a long enough lockdown? Or is there any solution other than herd immunity?

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#24

Post by not_a_moth »

theobeers wrote: post #5

One of the most active figures in this debate has been a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell. He frequently posts interesting sources on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cameronks

Yes, rather absurdly, I learned about him like a month ago on ZeroHedge when they started following him; he was brushed off for weeks, his message being, "Look at patient behavior, this is not actually ARDS, our ventilator strategy is probably wrong."

Crazy to think that so many doctors around the world, experts, and policy makers didn't really question the fundamental nature of the disease, and perhaps telling that it took an ER doctor in NYC posting on youtube for a month to bring it proper attention.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#25

Post by tomrod »

joshgel wrote: post #12
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7

One of the most interesting parts of this press release, following it on other boards, is the immediate "We already do that. Nothing new here." That kind of reply would immediately lead me to think it was just a useless release, but then I see people posting comments along the lines of "No, we don't do that. In fact, we have a policy against doing that because of the danger of aerosolization" For my hacker/systems wo…

Even better would be randomized experimental data that this was better than an alternative... 'It works' can mean lots of different things...

Sure, but check out causal I ferwnce methods coming from Pearl, Gelman, Rubin, Imbens, etc.

RCT is wonderful when we can get them and not always show stopper when not.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#26

Post by specialist »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7

One of the most interesting parts of this press release, following it on other boards, is the immediate "We already do that. Nothing new here." That kind of reply would immediately lead me to think it was just a useless release, but then I see people posting comments along the lines of "No, we don't do that. In fact, we have a policy against doing that because of the danger of aerosolization" For my hacker/systems wo…

"...interesting example of how organizations learn."

Highest recommendation for Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation, first published in 1963, 5th edition in 2003.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

It's seminal. Having read a lot of process and innovation books in 90s and aughts, I really wish I had known to just start with the original text.

Knowledge sharing takes time. We know how to model it. This book (and others) helped me to calm down and try to hasten the process instead of wasting my energy railing and failing.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#27

Post by allisterb »

theobeers wrote: post #5

One of the most active figures in this debate has been a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell. He frequently posts interesting sources on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cameronks

He was the first person I thought of when I saw this. He's been saying for weeks that the ventilator strategy was wrong and was harming patients.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#29

Post by christkv »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7

One of the most interesting parts of this press release, following it on other boards, is the immediate "We already do that. Nothing new here." That kind of reply would immediately lead me to think it was just a useless release, but then I see people posting comments along the lines of "No, we don't do that. In fact, we have a policy against doing that because of the danger of aerosolization" For my hacker/systems wo…

This also probably explains the high death rates on ventilators now as only the near death patients are being put on the ventilator now.

Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives

#30

Post by anon1385 »

mrfusion wrote: post #23
IlyaMoroshkin wrote: post #17

With treatment so simple, we have effectively removed the healthcare system as a bottleneck on the rest of society. I think we can safely reopen fully now and treat any serious cases using our existing healthcare systems in combination with this kind of new knowledge. The longer we 'suppress the curve', when we are already far below hospital system capacity, the more economic and social damage we cause unnecessarily.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Here’s an article that puts sources and numbers on your thought: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-i... I’d be curious to hear counterpoints. I could be wrong. It does anyone think this will go away with a long enough lockdown? Or is there any solution other than herd immunity?

The most important counterpoint is that the Stanford study cited there is really bad: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...

The more recent numbers from New York put the IFR at 0.5 to 1%, which matches what most organisations (WHO, governments etc) have been assuming for a couple of months now. Also the actual death count from NY makes the Stanford numbers pretty much impossible (0.2% of people in NYC have already died).

Post reply on HN