To clarify for you (again), my comment was regarding your unfounded derision of existing, proven, lifesaving technologies—I was not dismissing of the technique proposed in the article.
I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.
On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.
Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.
You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".