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 wonks, this a great example of group learning happening world wide. I imagine there are many ICUs that do this, and many that forbid it. In such an environment, releases like this aren't submarines or spam; they're recurring prompts to administrators elsewhere that they might be missing something important.
I hate to sound cold, but damn this is an interesting example of how organizations learn. One commenter asked "I wonder how many of those hospitals who forbid intubation are doing it to patients with good insurance"
For the record, as far as I know this is a horrible thing to suggest. But the overall point, that large organizations have incentives that are many times removed from the actual work being done, is a good one.
This kind of conversation facilitation across borders is what the internet was supposed to be doing. I think this is the first time I've seen it working the way we had hoped. What's especially interesting to me is that many of the signals we look for in social forums, like "this is just a spam press release", "nothing new to see", or "there's some ulterior motivation here" voting up or down, etc., are actually counter-indicators and inhibitors of overall progress.