[Mahler9th]

"When there are not enough beds, respirators, health care workers, and they must choose between letting you live or die, you don't want to be "choosy"."

Makes no sense. I would very very likely be incapacitated. So I could likely not be involved in "choosing."

But that is not the point. The points I make relate to the larger scope of what is necessary to keep people alive.

And of course as I have stated, giving prime consideration to the best places to focus resources with the highest likelihood of impact.

I envision if we ever get to a point here in the U.S. where folks are using cobbled together critical care equipment, there will be massive "civil unrest situations."

During the civil war, I reckon that they did a lot of amputations and a lot of casualties were due to disease and infections. A lot. In a lot of ways that is all they could do. And all they knew to do.

In this case, most if not all folks in jeopardy, and their loved ones will clearly know at some level the differences in likely outcomes between care settings (including equipment like vents) and caregivers that are part of our every day health care system, and those that are cobbled together and operated by laypeople.

So I can envision a scenario where people will fight hard, perhaps against each other for the former.

Anyway, I understand that in times like these it is leadership that helps guide impactful use of resources, including those that want to cobble and tinker.

Even during WW2 I am sure that some well-meaning folks eschewed working at the airplane factory and decided to try to design and build their own war planes.

We are all human.