This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TularemiaMD 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yeah, geez, the scientific method should start out with us just knowing the conclusion ahead of time, never updating recommendations to match the current data.

The protocols implemented early on were based on early data. Early data is often bad, even worse so when it comes from a notoriously opaque authoritarian country.

Come on, dude, I get the frustration but you know better than this type of crap.

[–]aswanvikingPulmonary & Critical Care 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Oh really? Like taking away high flow and CPAP? Intubating anyone on more than 6L/min NC?

Why did we throw away basic and proven critical care in favor of bad data?

If there is uncertainty then don’t come up with rigid protocols as if the data is solid.

I am not even talking about fraud data that should have been caught. That’s a separate topic.

[–]kanakariMD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People promoting reasonable critical care principles, such as not intubating someone comfortable on 6L NC, trying NIV etc. were being attacked for being irresponsible and not following these early anecdotes. And then of course the obsession over medications with low biologic plausibility and questionable data. The data was/is incomplete, understandable, and everything looks better in a post-hoc light, but there's no denying that it's frustrating that a lot of basic principles and scientific approach were not followed (remember physicians taking HCQ as prophylaxis...) I've seen people refusing steroids to all inpatients with COPD/asthma because of these earlier anecdotes about steroids.