Since January leaks from Chinese health care warned about all of this. Was there internet ban in US I was unaware of? Or a widespread belief in exceptionalism?
"(4) Salvage therapy: for patients with severe ARDS, a recruitment maneuver is recommended.
When human resources allow, prone ventilation should be carried out for 12 hours or more every day. "
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/coronavirus-treatment-plan...
There's simply a shocking degree of arrogance from the West to refuse to learn even the most basic things from Asia about this.
For example, people are finally grudgingly admitting that CT scans could play a useful role in diagnostics after months of CDC & ACR denialism: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/16/ct-scans-alternative-to-...
edit: More details in Jack Ma Foundation produced Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment
(3) Prone Position Ventilation Most critically ill patients with COVID-19 respond well to prone ventilation, with a rapid improvement of oxygenation and lung mechanics. Prone ventilation is recommended as a routine strategy for patients with PaO/FiO2 < 150 mmHg or with obvious imaging manifestations without contraindications. Time course recommended for prone ventilation is more than 16 hours each time. The prone ventilation can be ceased once PaO/FiO2 is greater than 150 mm Hg for more than 4 hours in the supine position.
Prone ventilation while awake may be attempted for patients who have not been intubated or have no obvious respiratory distress but with impaired oxygenation or have consolidation in gravity-dependent lung zones on lung images. Procedures for at least 4 hours each time is recommended. Prone position can be considered several times per day depending on the effects and tolerance.
https://www.alibabacloud.com/universal-service/pdf_reader?cd...
There is no "shocking degree of arrogance from the West" but there may be a failure of adequate reporting, in this article and others, of what we are doing in hospitals.
Watch as Western countries start discovering as they roll out their automated contact tracing apps how little the tech plays a role in an effective contact tracing system.
There's a lot of parameters in the "design space" of contact tracing. If you're objecting to simply the most extreme version of it, then duh, anyone would, including the Chinese.
In the first stages of Corona we did a lot of old school contact tracing.
There's many different ways of doing contact tracing that involve myriad tradeoffs. Every Asian country that has rolled it out has had negotiations between the citizens and the government over the various dimensions and how to balance between competing concerns (yes, even China). Every country has landed in a slightly different form of contact tracing based on existing resources, societal norms and degree of urgency.
It's shockingly arrogant to assume that Asian citizens haven't grappled seriously with these issues and, even if they have landed in a different position than you would prefer, that the conversations they're having don't have any value.
I've yet to read a single English language piece on Asian contact tracing that has accurately described how contact tracing works on the ground in a nuts and bolts way across multiple countries. Instead, all I read are exoticised, fetishized pieces that focus on technological bells and whistles or highlights a bunch of theoretical privacy violations that either aren't a big deal in practice or easily gotten around with some simple design tweaks.
Then, you get people who go off half cocked and make sweeping statements about an entire category of methods while having done literally no research on how it actually works in a real world context.
That does not mean there are other voices in the West. But I do not know what you are looking for, and what you think is bad information.
Each approach has different pros & cons when it comes to privacy and effectiveness. Which one specifically do people think is acceptable and unacceptable?
Not sure it is Western arrogance rather than standard medical arrogance.
The video accompanying the NYT piece (5m:37sec) one doctor says:
> We have large randomized controlled trials. The patients in those trials had met the same diagnostic criteria that are current patients meet. We should apply the results of the trials.
This is insane for a new disease.
> I'm arguing for evidence-based medicine, which is something we all purported to agree with before the outbreak hit.
> We have large randomized controlled trials. The patients in those trials had met the same diagnostic criteria that are current patients meet. We should apply the results of the trials.
The problem is that Covid-19 is caused by a NOVEL virus which has no evidence base. There should be at least some skepticism regarding the applicability of previous studies.
Starting at 1min https://youtu.be/rfkbv_WQtn0
I thought it was just official health care, public institutions talking thru public media?