Doing Harm by Doing Nothing

 

Doctors are supposed to be known for their commitment to “do no harm.” But is it possible to do harm by refusing to act?

Our medical community is not helping its patients to deal with the pandemic of fear and disease. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the very treatment which could save lives is being ignored, due to the timidity of doctors and hospitals:

Doses of monoclonal antibodies—Covid-19 therapies authorized for emergency use last month—are sitting unused in hospital pharmacies, even as cases surge across the country.

Hospitals say the rollout of the therapies has been stunted by a lukewarm response from infectious-disease specialists, who say they want more clinical trial data before using them on a regular basis. Medical centers are also grappling with a lack of awareness and interest from both the primary-care doctors who would normally prescribe the drug and patients who are offered it. And some places are dealing with a shortage of space and staff to administer the therapies.

So on the topic of the greatest current health threat in America, the medical community is wringing its hands:

‘To be really certain about the results, you need greater numbers,’ said Rajesh Gandhi, an infectious-disease physician at MGH and a member of the Covid-19 treatment guidelines panels at the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

While doctors wait for greater numbers in the “results,” greater numbers of people are dying. These are the professionals whom we’re supposed to admire; we put our lives in their hands every day.

How many people will need to die, and how great must the numbers be, to try to save those who are most ill?

Published in Healthcare
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 56 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If not, then why do you think that you know so much more than these specialists? I certainly don’t know more than they do. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the skepticism is warranted, but it also doesn’t mean that the skepticism is unwarranted.

    If they were approved by the FDA, the be-all and end-all of approvals, then why are so many doctors ignoring them? And as I already asked, how many would equal a “greater number” for them to agree to use them? I am not dissing all doctors in general, but I don’t think these decisions are based on wisdom or a rationale. I think they are afraid. Did you read the recent comment by Fauci that he lied about the numbers that would lead to herd immunity, because he was trying to coax us into getting the vaccine? (The link is in Comment #7 above.) Does that sound like good science or medicine to you? Sounds like manipulation and being treated as children to me. People don’t always act out of rational decision-making.

    • #31
  2. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Why is it wrong for doctors to be hesitant to use a new and relatively untested treatment? The article says that “infectious-disease specialists . . . want more clinical trial data before using them on a regular basis.”

    That seems quite reasonable to me. Does it not seem reasonable to the rest of you?

    If so, then the criticisms are unfair.

    If not, then why do you think that you know so much more than these specialists? I certainly don’t know more than they do. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the skepticism is warranted, but it also doesn’t mean that the skepticism is unwarranted.

    It is certainly difficult to figure out who to trust in the present circumstances. But that applies to the WSJ as well (the source of this story).

    If this virus is such a deadly threat that our children and grand children will be left with a smoking ruin of an economy, not to mention the harm done societally, then rolling the dice on decades-old medications, with minimum side effects, seems logical and reasonable. 

    Covid is either a threat, or it’s not. We’re being told one thing while the medical community treats it as another. 

    • #32
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Why is it wrong for doctors to be hesitant to use a new and relatively untested treatment? The article says that “infectious-disease specialists . . . want more clinical trial data before using them on a regular basis.”

    That seems quite reasonable to me. Does it not seem reasonable to the rest of you?

    If so, then the criticisms are unfair.

    If not, then why do you think that you know so much more than these specialists? I certainly don’t know more than they do. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the skepticism is warranted, but it also doesn’t mean that the skepticism is unwarranted.

    It is certainly difficult to figure out who to trust in the present circumstances. But that applies to the WSJ as well (the source of this story).

    Well, trust Fauci to guide you in the right direction.

    • #33
  4. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If not, then why do you think that you know so much more than these specialists? I certainly don’t know more than they do. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the skepticism is warranted, but it also doesn’t mean that the skepticism is unwarranted.

    If they were approved by the FDA, the be-all and end-all of approvals, then why are so many doctors ignoring them? And as I already asked, how many would equal a “greater number” for them to agree to use them? I am not dissing all doctors in general, but I don’t think these decisions are based on wisdom or a rationale. I think they are afraid. Did you read the recent comment by Fauci that he lied about the numbers that would lead to herd immunity, because he was trying to coax us into getting the vaccine? (The link is in Comment #7 above.) Does that sound like good science or medicine to you? Sounds like manipulation and being treated as children to me. People don’t always act out of rational decision-making.

    Can you think of any answers to this question?  They are answered in the article that you linked — and if you follow the link-within-the-link about the approval for emergency use, you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    I don’t automatically distrust Gates, by the way.  But I don’t automatically trust him, either.

    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval.  Does this seem wrong to you?

    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci.  So we can’t trust Fauci.  But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason.  And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    Susan, I’m sorry if I’m picking on you.  I’m confident that you are sincere, but you (and I, and everybody else) are facing questions about which there is great uncertainty.  And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment.  You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    • #34
  5. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    -snip

    If they were approved by the FDA, the be-all and end-all of approvals, then why are so many doctors ignoring them? And as I already asked, how many would equal a “greater number” for them to agree to use them? I am not dissing all doctors in general, but I don’t think these decisions are based on wisdom or a rationale. I think they are afraid. Did you read the recent comment by Fauci that he lied about the numbers that would lead to herd immunity, because he was trying to coax us into getting the vaccine? (The link is in Comment #7 above.) Does that sound like good science or medicine to you? Sounds like manipulation and being treated as children to me. People don’t always act out of rational decision-making.

    Can you think of any answers to this question? They are answered in the article that you linked — and if you follow the link-within-the-link about the approval for emergency use, you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    I don’t automatically distrust Gates, by the way. But I don’t automatically trust him, either.

    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval. Does this seem wrong to you?

    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci. So we can’t trust Fauci. But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason. And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    Susan, I’m sorry if I’m picking on you. I’m confident that you are sincere, but you (and I, and everybody else) are facing questions about which there is great uncertainty. And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment. You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    I am not speaking for Susan.

    But I will confidently accuse them of needlessly killing people. And by “them”, I am speaking of the global medical community. (YMMV) Countless cancers that would respond to early treatment are going undiagnosed. People killed by ventilators to keep medical staff safe. Our seniors are dying from “failure to thrive” and God only knows what else because they no longer have a loved one available, bedside, to keep an eye out.

    The third world will pay an even bigger in every way, especially medically.

    • #35
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    Bill Gates isn’t the one who gave it provisional approval.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval. Does this seem wrong to you?

    No it doesn’t seem wrong. But here is why emergency use approval is given:

    Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), the FDA Commissioner may allow unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

    Provisional means that the drugs have passed some level of approval. And there are few if any other drugs available. So, to have most doctors not taking advantage of this approval is questionable to me.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci. So we can’t trust Fauci. But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason. And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    I’m saying that Fauci is a government bureaucrat with very questionable credibility. The bureaucrats probably control the narrative on these drugs–I think they are making it even more difficult for other doctors to use them.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment. You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    You aren’t picking on me. You’ve raised good questions, Jerry. I didn’t say they were doing a “terrible job”; I just think they lack courage. And based on their choices, fewer drugs were available. 

    And we can always agree to disagree. ;-)

    • #36
  7. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    If they were approved by the FDA, the be-all and end-all of approvals, then why are so many doctors ignoring them? And as I already asked, how many would equal a “greater number” for them to agree to use them? I am not dissing all doctors in general, but I don’t think these decisions are based on wisdom or a rationale. I think they are afraid. Did you read the recent comment by Fauci that he lied about the numbers that would lead to herd immunity, because he was trying to coax us into getting the vaccine? (The link is in Comment #7 above.) Does that sound like good science or medicine to you? Sounds like manipulation and being treated as children to me. People don’t always act out of rational decision-making.

    Can you think of any answers to this question? They are answered in the article that you linked — and if you follow the link-within-the-link about the approval for emergency use, you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    I don’t automatically distrust Gates, by the way. But I don’t automatically trust him, either.

    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval. Does this seem wrong to you?

    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci. So we can’t trust Fauci. But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason. And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    Susan, I’m sorry if I’m picking on you. I’m confident that you are sincere, but you (and I, and everybody else) are facing questions about which there is great uncertainty. And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment. You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    Sheep 1: Why are they corralling us like this?

    Sheep 2: To give us a dip for our own health and protection.

    Sheep 3: To shear off our winter coats.

    Sheep 4: To move us to greener pastures.

    Sheep 5: It’s a cook book! 

    Like lambs to the slaughter.  In fact, I’ve been reading about Malthusian and dystopian projects for a long time.  Does The Great Reset include reducing the earths population from 7.5 billion to 0.5 billion or not?  Does it include aggregating money and power in a few and letting the population of Venezuela the US starve and die of disease, limited and poor-quality water, poor sanitation, and protein-calorie deficiency?

    • #37
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    If they were approved by the FDA, the be-all and end-all of approvals, then why are so many doctors ignoring them? And as I already asked, how many would equal a “greater number” for them to agree to use them? I am not dissing all doctors in general, but I don’t think these decisions are based on wisdom or a rationale. I think they are afraid. Did you read the recent comment by Fauci that he lied about the numbers that would lead to herd immunity, because he was trying to coax us into getting the vaccine? (The link is in Comment #7 above.) Does that sound like good science or medicine to you? Sounds like manipulation and being treated as children to me. People don’t always act out of rational decision-making.

    Can you think of any answers to this question? They are answered in the article that you linked — and if you follow the link-within-the-link about the approval for emergency use, you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    I don’t automatically distrust Gates, by the way. But I don’t automatically trust him, either.

    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval. Does this seem wrong to you?

    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci. So we can’t trust Fauci. But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason. And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    Susan, I’m sorry if I’m picking on you. I’m confident that you are sincere, but you (and I, and everybody else) are facing questions about which there is great uncertainty. And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment. You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    Sheep 1: Why are they corralling us like this?

    Sheep 2: To give us a dip for our own health and protection.

    Sheep 3: To shear off our winter coats.

    Sheep 4: To move us to greener pastures.

    Sheep 5: It’s a cook book!

    Like lambs to the slaughter. In fact, I’ve been reading about Malthusian and dystopian projects for a long time. Does The Great Reset include reducing the earths population from 7.5 billion to 0.5 billion or not? Does it include aggregating money and power in a few and letting the population of Venezuela the US starve and die of disease, limited and poor-quality water, poor sanitation, and protein-calorie deficiency?

    I’m ready to believe just about anything, Flicker.

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I’m not sure the Hippocratic Oath is a requirement for doctors to practice . . .

    • #39
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):

    I’m not sure the Hippocratic Oath is a requirement for doctors to practice . . .

    Right.

    • #40
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Can you think of any answers to this question? They are answered in the article that you linked — and if you follow the link-within-the-link about the approval for emergency use, you’ll find this WSJ article about these experimental treatments being touted by — wait for it — Bill Gates.

    I don’t automatically distrust Gates, by the way. But I don’t automatically trust him, either.

    I would think that an emergency use approval is necessarily provisional, which implies that it is quite sensible for medical professionals to treat the approval differently than a typical FDA approval. Does this seem wrong to you?

    Then, for some reason, you go to Fauci. So we can’t trust Fauci. But then you seem to think that we should be trusting the FDA’s emergency approval, for some reason. And not trusting the other doctors who are more skeptical of the treatment, and would like to see more data.

    Susan, I’m sorry if I’m picking on you. I’m confident that you are sincere, but you (and I, and everybody else) are facing questions about which there is great uncertainty. And yet, you write a post expressing a great deal of certainty that the medical profession is doing a terrible job by not adopting this new treatment. You essentially accuse them of needlessly killing people.

    Sheep 1: Why are they corralling us like this?

    Sheep 2: To give us a dip for our own health and protection.

    Sheep 3: To shear off our winter coats.

    Sheep 4: To move us to greener pastures.

    Sheep 5: It’s a cook book!

    Like lambs to the slaughter. In fact, I’ve been reading about Malthusian and dystopian projects for a long time. Does The Great Reset include reducing the earths population from 7.5 billion to 0.5 billion or not? Does it include aggregating money and power in a few and letting the population of Venezuela the US starve and die of disease, limited and poor-quality water, poor sanitation, and protein-calorie deficiency?

    I’m ready to believe just about anything, Flicker.

    Well, honestly I don’t think it’s a cookbook.

    • #41
  12. AUMom Member
    AUMom
    @AUMom

    Today is Day 9 for AUDad and his covid case. He finally agreed to get a lung X-ray. I was on the phone with our dr.’s office, (who has done a stellar job with me. Prednisone helped immediately and my case seems far lighter). They said they were not going to just sent over orders for an X-ray. He would need to be evaluated. Great thing too. Lungs are not bad but he has possible kidney complications. A bag of IV fluids, a steroid, and three hours later, he is home to recover. 

    Salute! 

    • #42
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    AUMom (View Comment):

    Today is Day 9 for AUDad and his covid case. He finally agreed to get a lung X-ray. I was on the phone with our dr.’s office, (who has done a stellar job with me. Prednisone helped immediately and my case seems far lighter). They said they were not going to just sent over orders for an X-ray. He would need to be evaluated. Great thing too. Lungs are not bad but he has possible kidney complications. A bag of IV fluids, a steroid, and three hours later, he is home to recover.

    Salute!

    I hope you are both fully healed soon,  AUMom!

    • #43
  14. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If not, then why do you think that you know so much more than these specialists? I certainly don’t know more than they do. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the skepticism is warranted, but it also doesn’t mean that the skepticism is unwarranted.

    Your family doctor is probably not a specialist. They don’t know everything, and they might even tell you when they don’t know. They usually tell you when they’re reciting from the CDC Bible Stories, too. Those stories are often true, so I don’t discount them out of hand, but I do apply a grain of salt.

    I sometimes have learned things about health care that my doctor doesn’t know, but my doctor knows a lot of things I don’t know. I try to work through the issues with doctors accordingly. 

     

    • #44
  15. C. U. Douglas Coolidge
    C. U. Douglas
    @CUDouglas

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):
    We patients need to remember that the practice of medicine remains an art, not a science, and that the arts are far more complex than the sciences.

    I agree with your points, Marci. But the medicines that are being offered, in many cases, are not new. They may not always be as effective as we would like–only time will verify that fact–but to ignore that they are available is a real shame.

    Government doesn’t treat medicine as a science or an art. Rather it’s a part of the bureaucratic process. It’s not there to produce a result, that is healthy people, but rather to perpetuate the process. Healthy people is just a fortunate side effect of said process, when it happens at all.

    • #45
  16. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Every institution of our government has rightfully earned our mistrust. 

    To the extent doctors are wary, they are just like the rest of us. 

    Here’s hoping we can find trustworthy scientists to help us push through both the censorship and bureaucratic punishment…

    Honestly, only G-d can help us discern. 

    • #46
  17. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    At Coronavirus – For Health Professionals (michigan.gov) “’Patient Treatment Protocols’ What should I use to treat a COVID-19 patient?” They are as follows:

    Of these, only two seem to include actual treatment recommendations. The EMS Response link includes document “14.06 – Clinical Treatment…” and was issued 03/23/20 and updated 08/28/20. That’s great for EMS. It helps them get critical Covid patients to the ED. But what about once the patient arrives?

    The more comprehensive, because it includes in-patient care, EMS protocols, PPE, utilization of resources, etc.,“MDHHS COVID-19 Practice Management Guide” was issued 3/27/20 with no indicated updates and appears to be a 33 page DoD document authored by 57 people with 5 pages of references and an additional 33 pages of appendices, including 20 pages of color coded cookie cutter charts for scarce resource management from the Minnesota Department of Health. But not to worry, every page has this footer, “Guideline Only/Not a Substitute for Clinical Judgment“.

    If the pandemic months are school years, we should be learning Algebra and The State of Michigan is still at, “Everything we needed to know we learned in Kindergarten.”

    • #47
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    KCVolunteer (View Comment):
    Of these, only two seem to include actual treatment recommendations. The EMS Response link includes document “14.06 – Clinical Treatment…” and was issued 03/23/20 and updated 08/28/20. That’s great for EMS. It helps them get critical Covid patients to the ED. But what about once the patient arrives?

    Thanks for this information, KCVolunteer. Considering how often treatments and protocols change, this is sad. For everyone.

    • #48
  19. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    KCVolunteer (View Comment):

    At Coronavirus – For Health Professionals (michigan.gov) “’Patient Treatment Protocols’ What should I use to treat a COVID-19 patient?” They are as follows:

    Of these, only two seem to include actual treatment recommendations. The EMS Response link includes document “14.06 – Clinical Treatment…” and was issued 03/23/20 and updated 08/28/20. That’s great for EMS. It helps them get critical Covid patients to the ED. But what about once the patient arrives?

    The more comprehensive, because it includes in-patient care, EMS protocols, PPE, utilization of resources, etc.,“MDHHS COVID-19 Practice Management Guide” was issued 3/27/20 with no indicated updates and appears to be a 33 page DoD document authored by 57 people with 5 pages of references and an additional 33 pages of appendices, including 20 pages of color coded cookie cutter charts for scarce resource management from the Minnesota Department of Health. But not to worry, every page has this footer, “Guideline Only/Not a Substitute for Clinical Judgment“.

    If the pandemic months are school years, we should be learning Algebra and The State of Michigan is still at, “Everything we needed to know we learned in Kindergarten.”

    I noticed this a few weeks ago on the Mass.gov website pages devoted to covid-19. None of them had been updated for months. It is the weirdest thing. The virus dominates every news cycle, but there’s little response within the public health field other than something to do with “people of color.” I wonder if the riots last summer are a factor. 

    I also think that pursuing prevention strategies–the masks and social distancing and contact tracing–diverted the state and local governments’ attention from treatment angles to largely ineffective, out-of-date containment angles. 

    And did the election have anything to do with why there was so little new information on the covid-19 pages? Most government employees at the state and local levels are Democrats. Were they holding their breath hoping that election would get rid of Trump? 

    It was just bizarre to see these pages that did not address any of the recent studies or experiences within states and cities and towns across the country. The state governments should be the clearinghouse for the latest information. 

    • #49
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MarciN (View Comment):
    It was just bizarre to see these pages that did not address any of the recent studies or experiences within states and cities and towns across the country. The state governments should be the clearinghouse for the latest information. 

    I’ve been thinking about these factors a lot, Marci, and I think they believed that it all just keeps changing all the time, so why bother changing the data when it will just change again? I hope I’m wrong . . . 

    • #50
  21. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I noticed this a few weeks ago on the Mass.gov website pages devoted to covid-19. None of them had been updated for months. It is the weirdest thing.  . . .

    It was just bizarre to see these pages that did not address any of the recent studies or experiences within states and cities and towns across the country. The state governments should be the clearinghouse for the latest information. 

    I’ve seen the same. State and local governments still using guidelines developed in March when we knew little about how this virus operates. But that’s kind of how governments work: they’re the last to adapt to changing conditions. (For example, Republicans still think they can win elections by emulating the Romneys and Bushes.)

    • #51
  22. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):
    It was just bizarre to see these pages that did not address any of the recent studies or experiences within states and cities and towns across the country. The state governments should be the clearinghouse for the latest information.

    I’ve been thinking about these factors a lot, Marci, and I think they believed that it all just keeps changing all the time, so why bother changing the data when it will just change again? I hope I’m wrong . . .

    It’s a serious dereliction of the responsibility they have to the state’s citizens.

    The lack of up-to-date information explains a lot of the frustration town and city governments have right now. It would be like going to the National Weather Service website and finding that it hadn’t been updated with the latest weather forecasts for months.

    It’s extremely poor executive leadership.

    • #52
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    KCVolunteer (View Comment):
    The more comprehensive, because it includes in-patient care, EMS protocols, PPE, utilization of resources, etc.,“MDHHS COVID-19 Practice Management Guide” was issued 3/27/20 with no indicated updates and appears to be a 33 page DoD document …

    Pulled out of a Pentagon desk drawer no doubt, where it has languished lo these many years.

    … authored by 57 people

    “What’ll we assign the intern to?”

    “Have him update the PMG. That’ll hold him most of the summer.”

    with 5 pages of references and an additional 33 pages of appendices, including 20 pages of color coded cookie cutter charts for scarce resource management from the Minnesota Department of Health.

    Appended at the last minute in an effort to look busy.

    But not to worry, every page has this footer, “Guideline Only/Not a Substitute for Clinical Judgment“.

    But it is a remarkable simulacrum of “planning.” Output has been generated. Butts have been covered. Mission accomplished.

     

    • #53
  24. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    I would never want to burst your bubble Percival, and never having been in the military, if these people are the interns, we don’t stand a chance.

    Of course they may have just taken the credit.

    DoD COVID-19 PRACTICE MANAGEMENT GUIDE
    Clinical Management of COVID-19
    To consolidate resources and optimize the management for patients
    requiring clinical care during the global COVID-19 pandemic.
    Contributors
    Lt Col Renée I. Matos, MC, USAF
    COL Kevin K. Chung, MC, USA
    CDR John Benjamin, MC, USN
    LTC Matthew A. Borgman, MC, USA
    Laura R. Brosch, RN, PhD
    Robert F. Browning, MD
    CAPT Timothy H. Burgess, MC, USN
    Col Francis R. Carandang, MC, USAF
    LTC Jacob Collen, MC, USA
    LTC Christopher Colombo, MC, USA
    Ms. Polyxeni Combs, MS
    CAPT Konrad L. Davis, MC, USN
    COL Sean N. Dooley, MC, USA
    COL Jeremy Edwards, MC, USA
    CAPT Eric Elster, MC, USN
    MAJ Emilio Fentanes, MC, USA
    MAJ Brian Foster, MC, USA
    Dr. James Giordano, PhD
    Mr. Joshua Girton, JD, LLM, MBA
    Mark Haigney, MD
    LTC Mitchell Hamele, MC, USA
    COL Bonnie H. Hartstein, MC, USA
    Maj Alison Helfrich, MC, USAF COL
    Mrs. Jennifer Hesch,JD
    COL Patrick Hickey, MC, USA
    Col David Hsieh, MC, USAF
    CDR Ashley E. Humphries, MC, USN
    Maj John Hunninghake, MC, USAF
    MAJ Nikhil A. Huprikar, MC, USA
    CDR Michael J. Kavanaugh, MC, USN
    Lt Col Jeremy Kilburn, MC, USAF
    Maj David A. Lindholm, MC, USAF COL
    COL Frederick Lough, MC, USA
    LCDR Donovan L Mabe, MC, USN
    Col Leslie Matesick, MC, USAF
    CAPT Ryan C. Maves, MC, USN
    CDR Sean Mckay, MC, USN
    Maj Krista Mehlhaff, MC, USAF
    COL Clinton K. Murray, MC, USA
    Lt Col Jason F. Okulicz, MC, USAF
    COL Neil Page, MC, USA
    COL Jeremy C. Pamplin, MC, USA
    LTC Wylan C. Peterson, MC, USA
    Mr. Joseph Procaccino, JD, MFS
    Col James B. Sampson, MC, USAF
    LCDR David C. Shih, MC, USN
    Bich-Thuy T. Sim, MD
    LCDR Scott Snyder, MC, USN
    Col Barton C. Staat, MC, USAF
    Mr. Randy W. Stone, JD
    Col Deena E. Sutter, MC, USAF
    Lt Col Bryan D. Szalwinski, MC, USAF
    Maj Robert Walter, MC, USAF
    Mr. Bryan T. Wheeler, JD
    Col Leslie Wood, MC, USAF
    CAPT Luke Zabrocki, MC, USN
    Mr. Michael J. Zleit, JD
    Draft Release Date: 20 March 2020 Publication Date: 23 March 2020

    • #54
  25. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    KCVolunteer (View Comment):
    I would never want to burst your bubble Percival, and never having been in the military, if these people are the interns, we don’t stand a chance.

    No, go ahead. I didn’t even look. I am surprised that it wasn’t some old biological defense protocol that wasn’t polished up and pushed out there. 

    • #55
  26. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    Bureaucratic organizations self-protect first. That means they welcome massive amounts of Type 2 error before they will admit to the possibility of a whit of type 1 error.  

    More people will die, but the FA has been celebrating that scenario for 50 years.

    • #56
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.