It is made along the lines of Shanghai Oriental Morning Post 2.0. Without a doubt, it is an even more of a state organ media than it's spiritual predecessor, despite the mandate to push "dissenting" view.
Unlike something like Southern Weekly, which had not a single party cadre in its editors, despite being overtly party ran, but closed for merely contemplating of having its own line.
I read Southern Weekly during short stints in China a decade ago. Even it was an extremely stiff writing. I couldn't comprehend how people managed to spot "dissent" in it, except for the sole fact it had original writing not coming from the propaganda ministry, and it doing "a fact of life" reports.
Give this some thought. Were they not doing this with 100% official blessing, they would've been "rectified" faster than you can blink.
I suspect an article in Western-style media might have been a little less quick to let the government off the hook though:
> The main problem wasn’t poor preparation, but the sudden influx of patients that would have overwhelmed a stockpile even 10 times the size available
That sentence is probably true, but it also doesn't mention the ham-fisted approach by authorities at the beginning which exacerbated the problem.
May well be nothing.
The gotcha here is not what is being said, but why it is there in the first place.
At -2 (and counting) for this currently, any downvoters care to comment as to why? If indeed this publication is a propaganda mouthpiece, then my surprise that they're publishing something that reflects badly on their medical providers should be easy to understand
Sounds like a great way to establish credibility, while throwing local Wuhan officials even further under the bus.
This is not a story about how everything is perfect in China, 'cuz that's not believable to anyone. It's a story about how Central Government eventually fixed everything with the help from Patriots, which I think is going to be in increasing contrast to the Federal Government in the US, again despite a great deal of individual heroism on the ground level and a fair amount of competence in the civil service.
I mean a lot of stories posted on HN are about how things were shit but how a hero came in and fixed things. The article wouldn't have worked if it was someone coming into a ward where everything was already great - there would be nothing to improve, nothing to be proud of, and if anything they could only talk about how bad things were. You want an upwards story, not a flat one.
What's most interesting generally about this is where criticism is allowed in China. And it is actually allowed - but the main culprits are the governments of Wuhan and Hubei region and that it's the central government that is responsible for rescuing and clearing up their act. There wasn't too much of this in this article, but there was a little bit between the lines.
not really that different from paid reviews in west, where you find in cons things people don't care about and they are just added to look less biased
Definitely heard that from doctors in NYC as well. [1]
In COVID-19 cases, large areas of the lungs (article states 60% as an example) may be affected and only mild symptoms experienced until some point in time. Then comes the switch and you have sudden deterioration into critical condition.
In other viral pneumonia cases, more serious symptoms are subjectively experienced earlier, when much less area of the lungs is affected (article says 20% for H1N1).
As if the problem causing breathing trouble is strong in H1N1 from the beginning and suddenly switches on in the affected area for COVID-19 which had time to grow large beforehand.
I took chloroquine years ago as a preventative anti-malaria when I was in India. I didn't get the weird dreams, but I got the harsh bowl movement, heart palpations, etc. I had to stop taking it and so did someone else on the trip. Had I got malaria I knew it would be worse, but I could start taking them again as a treatment drug as well.
Others on the trip didn't have any issues so I'm sure it's individual, but it is a very serious drug that can be hard on your system. I don't think that's been made clear.
Malaria nowadays is very easy to prevent and treat with a course of atovaquone/proguanil, which have low side effect on the short run.
I want to know if doctors are still prescribing chloroquine despite of that. I know they do sometimes in the army.
The weird dreams and other neurological consequences that some unlucky travelers report when taking antimalaria prophylaxis, typically come from mefloquine (Lariam) and not chloroquine.
One doctor has said that corona patients should be treated like altitude sickness patients, not like viral patients (and this Wuhan article implies that.)
All doctors say that ventilator intubation is the equivalent of major surgery, requiring anesthetics for the duration of ventilation and a long recovery period. High air pressure damages lung tissue, so afterwards you won't be walking or talking much for weeks or months.
So when you put those together, the best US approach today so far is to provide supplemental oxygen with face masks or cannula until the patient faints repeatedly (turns blue or purple), then make a decision to intubate. (China learned and published this in Jan. or Feb., but we learned it in Mar. or Apr.)
The only problem there is that mouth-breathing patients aerosolize corona virua and infect staff and other patients, so they should be moved out of the hospital to a quarantine facility or sent home. I don't think we are doing this yet, and it's an important step to stopping lockdown since we'll have thousands of new patients to monitor and help breathe.
The US mistakes made pre-Apr. 1 were early intubation based on traditional oxygen level monitoring (and to prevent aerosolization to protect staff.) That had a 66% - 90% mortality rate and consumed too many ventilators.
> out best chance now is not to cure them, but to help them survive until their immune system fight it off?
There is no plan, cure or pattern except we give them oxygen and see what happens next. We have no diagnostic tools that tell us cause and effect. For example, X-rays can show corona virus lung congestion, but there's no measurement or inference we can draw from any image. All we know is that ventilators are a one-way trip for most patients. It is what it is.
If any of the antiviral drugs they are trying actually work it'll be the biggest stroke of luck in medicine.
Also, "HN" (who?) hasn't asserted anything like what you're saying. If that piece is propaganda, it's pretty well done.
Neither requires very high levels of technology
Sorry, but the use of this quote out of context is one of my pet peeves, and the similarity is striking.
In the case of G.W, he was receiving sailors returning to port after completing their deployment in harm's way. Their mission was accomplished. The message was not that war is over, as the media insinuated. In fact, the counterpoint was made in the speech[1], although few have read it.
>Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Similarly, in this article, if taken at face value, a volunteer went to Wuhan, risking their life, and returned. This does not mean that Covid is eradicated, but perhaps, their mission is accomplished too.
[1] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushir...
Edit: John McCain thought "Mission Accomplished" meant "End of War" too: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=4769254&pag...
If a speech says "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" and "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on" and "We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people" the message is pretty clear: the Iraq war was over.
Yes, the crew allegedly asked for the sign to be made, but Bush's speech was about the "end of major combat operations in Iraq". Speeches to thank aircraft carrier crews for their missions aren't nationally televised, but that speech was.
There was no doubt in national media at that time what the mission was that had been accomplished.
Here's administration member Richard Perle writing in USA Today about that:
It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq’s cities, towns, or infrastructure….It ended without the quagmire [war critics] predicted….Iraqis are freer today and we are safer. Relax and enjoy it.[1]
If anyone thinks a carefully choreographed performance[2] like this didn't also consider the banner.
Here's the archived speech[3] where is says: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
Your quote is later, where he makes clear there are other battles elsewhere ("Al Qaeda... still operate in many nations".)
[1] https://archives.cjr.org/short_takes/mission_revisited.php
[2] https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/mission-accompli...
[3] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...
