> Really it was a lose-lose situation. Ignore it and you stack bodies in a freezer truck like in NYC.
I can't tell whether this is sarcasm, but in the unlikely event that it's not, how do you explain every place that didn't lockdown having dramatically better numbers than NYC?
Surely there's no remaining possibility of regarding lockdowns as a success?
What data can possibly conclude this experiment if not the data which already exists?
Overuse of ventilators in the first wave probably killed a ton more people than expected. Once they dialed back ventilator use and established cortison treatments and normal oxygen instead death rates lowered.
Some doctors claim that during the first wave ventilators were used too much and too early (instead of just breathing masks). Ventilator can actually damage your lungs.
At the same time, cortison treatments were banned, another decision several doctors criticised (including a relative of mine).
During the next waves cortison treatments and a reduced use of ventilators decreased the mortality rate a lot.
Doctors didn't dare to go against the guidelines, even with their reservation (they could be held responsible if they did).
Some people I know wrote a book on the subject and are claiming we should held governments accountable for those dead in the first wave (and they've been promptly censored and facebook-banned out of existence). I tend to err on the side of incompetence more than malice.
That said, there is plenty of ignorant people claiming ventilators kill based on statistics - but it's usually the other way round: once you need a ventilator you're either dead 100% or you can get a 40% survival rate with a ventilator.
- are intended for use for a few days, not a few weeks. The artificial air pressure destroys lung cells and capillaries
- patients are sedated to avoid pulling out tubes. This weakens both their lung function and the rest of their body due to immobilization, including bed sores. Usually their trachea is damaged and they cannot talk after removing the tubes for a period of time, and must do physical rehabilitation afterwards.
- doctors and nurses consider patients on ventilators the sickest in the hospital, followed by recent ventilator patients
- being in a hospital for a month or more exposes patients to other infections, which are not immediately apparent in a sedated patient
- China warned about ventilator use being usually unproductive with corona very early in 2020, so it took a while for US doctors to understand that the low oxygen levels measured in corona patients was not a critical thing in most cases if they could still breathe on their own.
ER doctors are not researchers, so they follow previous recommendations until told otherwise.
I can't tell whether this is sarcasm, but in the unlikely event that it's not, how do you explain every place that didn't lockdown having dramatically better numbers than NYC?
Surely there's no remaining possibility of regarding lockdowns as a success?
What data can possibly conclude this experiment if not the data which already exists?