[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[uǝlƃ ☣]

And, by the way, Renee's son-in-law has lupus. So this fear-based shortage is directly threatening lives ... just in case you might wonder a little more about the consequences to individuals, apparently reserved for "good times".

On 4/15/20 6:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a singular scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best practices driven by repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to build guidelines for *who* to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to give them, and when to give it, we have to experiment. No experimentation means no guidelines.
> 
> No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should we "treat" patients that way?
> 
> Yes, it's true that any particular doctor, imbued with the power of their license and their relationship with particular patients, should have the power to dose their patient with it. But logistical decisions made at massive and costly hospital system scale really do need those guidelines.
> 
> It blows my mind that you don't understand this point.
> 
> On 4/14/20 8:12 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> The Laws of Scientific Procedure ARE the laws I am talking about here.  In good times, we can take the time to focus on the consequences to individuals.  And so, we can design our health systems for the most vulnerable among us.  That imposes delays on the "mean" patient, but no problem, we have other ways of treating the mean patient.  In an emergency,  the possibility that one in a million patients might have an allergy to some component of Chlorwhatitsface seems reasonably to be less relevant, even though it's built into the laws of scientific medical  procedure. 
> 
> 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ