> Because you're making a point of singling out every single reply in this thread that you disagree with, and making your objection about the user posting the comment rather than the comment yourself.

I don't believe that is true, but even if it was, I don't understand why that would motivate you to change the subject. A reason I can easily think of though is that I believe you've unjustly accused someone of making a particular claim, and if you realized that was true (pure speculation here, that's why I'm asking), it would be a fairly common behavior for one to try and move the topic to someone else to avoid facing that topic directly.

Now that we've realized we've veered off course, I'm still curious to know what I've said that you interpret as vitriol. I believe I may fall somewhere on the autism spectrum, so it is helpful for me to know when (and how) I offend people.

Regarding the accuracy of that statement, I will try to explain my perspective on it:

> you're making a point of singling out every single reply in this thread that you disagree with

I don't have any particular opinion on the plausibility of civilians being trained to operate ventilators, so it seems quite unlikely I'd disagree with anyone on that. Rather, where I have replied it was regarding the accuracy of assertions. Are you able to provide a specific example of where you believe I've done this?

> and making your objection about the user posting the comment rather than the comment yourself

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but the only time where I ever did something resembling "making it about the user" was when I suggested someone was falsely accusing someone else of making a specific claim, when I was unable to see any trace of them making that claim. Could you possibly provide an example where you believe I've done this?

> And claiming that the parent comment never claimed points that were plainly written.

I think you're a bit off base here, let's see if we can find where we disagree.

You wrote:

>> So, to be clear, you can blindly assert that sending incompetent pseudo-medics to perform invasive procedures will be beneficial, and assert that claim with absolute certainty and zero evidence.

This was in response to a thread that I will now quote in its entirety to facilitate efficient discussion and minimize opportunities for misunderstanding, including indications of whether I see your interpreted meaning in the text:

> Earlier in this thread it's stipulated that the bottleneck is not the number of ventilators but the trained people to operate them. As such, training more operators is an obvious solution, and allowing the new operators to be substandard will mean we can get more operators faster.

No.

> This pretty much dissolves your only real objection, that we'd be keeping a ventilator occupied that would otherwise be in use. Nope. The solution to a deficit of ventilators is producing more - not letting people die without them.

No.

> Generally, you are trying to invent reasons and restrictions to make trying to train ventilator-operators seem like a bad idea rather than understanding or advancing how the idea might be viable. An example of this is how you acknowledge that training other medical adjacent professionals (e.g. vetrenarians) would likely work. Great, you agree the idea could work. If you expect that our capacity will be overwhelmed then presumably you think we should training additional operators. Instead of reaching that conclusion you imagine reasons to object to the idea though.

No.

> A SWE would likely be worse than a vet after a bootcamp. That's a good reason to have some entry requirements to the bootcamp and those requirements could be relaxed or strengthened depending on where we expect demand to be in 30 days relative to supply. A SWE through a 30-day bootcamp would likely be better than nothing.

No.

> The other main constraint you've imagined is that they would need to save more people than they kill to be worthwhile. No, they'd need to save more people than would die without them. If it would be better to just struggle to breathe than have an amateur operator, that would be an argument against them.

No.

> Your credentials, whatever they are, haven't equipped you to clearly communicate your reasons for opposing this idea. As I mentioned, it seems like you actually support some version of it.

No.

I have come up short. Are you referring to a different comment than that one, or is there maybe something in the above text that you pick up on but I overlook?