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
I saw his video on Youtube a couple weeks ago, been trying to figure out who he is. Thank you!
UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
41–50 of 123 posts
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This also probably explains the high death rates on ventilators now as only the near death patients are being put on the ventilator now.
Is this well known in media reports for a while? I stopped following closely quite a while ago so mostly just pick things up from forum, but this seems newish to me? Last I heard was that some doubts were arising here and there about the usage/safety for covid patients.
The on the ground reports from NYC in This week in virology has been talking about moving away from respirators for at least 3 weeks. Now the ability of reporters looking for sensational news to actually listen to the professionals or read studies is a completely different issue. I wish they could just ask some of them to write opinion pieces to lay out the facts as they exist.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#43One 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…
Dr Ignaz Semmelweis had this ludicrous theory, back in 1846, of “cadaverous particles” causing high deaths in women who had just given birth. Despite evidence that it worked, he spent the rest of his life trying to get people to listen. The doctors of the day were so threatened by the possibility that they were the ones killing their patients that they rejected the practice.
We haven’t culturally evolved much further it seems. ”Wacky” ideas are routinely rejected by mainstream science; eg ulcers being caused by germs rather than stress, and can be cured as such. What societal changes need to come about that this doctor doesn't have to make YouTube videos for a month?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639...
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#44One 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...
Randomized controlled trials are optimal for gathering science.
They're not optimal for saving lives.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#45With 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?
We don’t know if people have long term immunity.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#46With 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.
Even if we open up legally, people aren’t going to take risks that can put them in a hospital on oxygen for weeks. It’s not a pleasant experience, ventilator or not. Restaurants will not be full, conferences will still be cancelled, etc.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Unfortunately, in the middle of a pandemic, that's not going to happen with enough speed to prevent a lot of people dying. How are you sure that this method is not worse than the ventilator method and will kill even more people during the pandemic? How many death did they get with this method? How many death would they had got with the ventilator method?
Ventilators do lots of damage. If this gets the O2 up it's better since natural breathing doesn't break lung tissue.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This, exactly.
The fixation on RCTs has kinda become "a meme" at this point. However it's lives on the line in some situations.
Not everything can be double-blind. Not every experiment can be ethically done with a placebo (or done at all).
Also the placebo effect is real but it is more pronounced in things like back pain or headaches, not so much in broken bones or aggressive viruses.
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#49One 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.
The headline that claimed 88% mortality was pretty misleading apparently:
Re: UChicago doctors see ‘remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives
#50So about CPAP / BiPAP? If all one needs it to push air down the lungs a CPAP can produce a lot of pressure. Anyone knows enough about it?