100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 07, 2020 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



Stay safe.” It’s a phrase that’s

becoming all too familiar in the days

of COVID-19. My husband says it to

me as he hugs me before I leave for work. I

read it in texts from friends and family who

I haven’t seen in weeks. The grocery store

clerk utters it through a plexiglass barrier

in the checkout line. These two words are

a ubiquitous mantra the whole world is

crying out in desperation.

I want to tell you all today that I am

not safe. I am not safe because Michigan

Medicine will not let me protect myself.

I am an ICU (intensive care unit) nurse at

Michigan Medicine. I am one of thousands

of front-line health care providers at the

hospital who are faced with the impossible

task of handling the coronavirus pandemic.

Similar to any other health care system in

the United States, our hospital was wholly

unprepared to face this unprecedented

crisis.

Personal protection gear for hospital

workers is limited worldwide and many

health care systems have had to adapt to

preserve their limited supply of masks.

Unfortunately, “The Michigan Difference”

here is that our hospital administration

is not only rationing protective gear but

also prohibiting bedside staff from using

their own personal equipment to protect

themselves from the virus.

So much is still not understood about

COVID-19. One of the greatest areas of

debate is whether the disease is transmitted

through the air or through respiratory

droplets. For health care providers caring

for patients, appropriate

droplet precautions include

a
simple
surgical
face

mask, along with a gown,

gloves and eye shield.

Diseases
with
airborne

transmission
can
easily

penetrate
these
masks.

Because of this, when a

disease is airborne, a more

sophisticated
respiratory

mask is recommended such

as an N95 or N100.

The world has only known about

COVID-19 for a few months. Researchers

are working around the clock to study its

transmission. Some studies are suggesting

the virus is airborne, but there is still not a

definitive consensus.

The
World
Health
Organization

and Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention both postulate that COVID-

19 transmission is primarily airborne and

close transmission via respiratory particles

is “uncertain.” However, the CDC has yet to

update its recommendations and maintain

that droplet precautions provide healthcare

workers with adequate protection. Is

this reluctance a product of insufficient

evidence?

Of course, a shortage of personal

protective gear is not a problem unique to

Michigan Medicine. Up until recently, the

hospital was recommending and supplying

COVID-19 providers with N95 masks. That

rug was pulled out from under us on March

19 when the administration announced

that we will now be using simple face masks

and N95 masks will only be used in special

circumstances.

This policy change feels alarming and

irresponsible. The hospital administration

has shown a profound lack of transparency

on showing staff what data they are using

to support this change. The change has

left many of us panicked. Are we really

expected to just believe that a mask will

protect us when there is still no consensus

on transmission?

On March 30, it was announced that,

in anticipation of an influx of patients, a

new staffing model would be introduced

to address patients exceeding our current

nursing capacity. We will all be forced

to work 12-hour shifts, with very few

exceptions. We will work with non-ICU

trained nurses to care for up to 12 patients

at a time, including several patients who are

critically ill. This means as bedside staff,

our exposure to this virus will increase

exponentially, while our only protection is

a face mask that will “probably” protect us.

Maybe it’s too much to ask for a hospital

to provide N95 masks to all its frontline staff

during a global crisis. The shortage of gear

is obviously not just a Michigan problem.

But what if I purchase my own personal

N95 mask or reusable respirator mask

online to use at work? Many are expensive

and difficult to find, but perhaps the price

is worth it when you are fearful for the

health of yourself and your family. Henry

Ford Health System has not only allowed

staff to use their own personal gear but also

has allowed staff to make their own masks

amid the shortage.

On March 30, the Joint Commission

released a statement supporting the use of

health care providers utilizing their own

personal protective equipment, saying “the

degree to which privately-owned masks

and respirators will increase the protection

of health care workers is uncertain.

However, the balance of evidence suggests

that it is positive.”

Despite this recommendation, on April 1,

Michigan sent a hospital-wide email saying

they will continue to prohibit the use of

personal protection brought from home.

The
CDC
has
also

published recommendations

for
ways
to
protect

providers
when
masks

are limited or unavailable.

They have even gone as far

as to say that we can use

bandanas and scarves as

a last resort. Yet if I have

an N95 mask at home for

personal use, Michigan

says that it is not OK to

use at work. It is frustrating how our

administrators can pick and choose which

recommendations they will abide by.

As health care providers, we take an

oath to do no harm. We did not take an

oath to stand by and allow ourselves to be

harmed in the process.

There is a fine line between essential

employees and sacrificial staff. This week

it was announced that a Henry Ford

Hospital nurse died after testing positive

for COVID-19. Hospital administrators

are making choices around infection

control, but we are the ones paying the

ultimate price.

Michigan Medicine is a respected

leader in health care and should be setting

an example for the rest of Southeast

Michigan as we fight through this

pandemic. By not allowing us to wear our

own gear, the hospital is being negligent

and disrespectful to every single person

who is putting their life on the line to help

these sick patients. We have a right to do

anything we can to protect our lives and

the lives of those we love without fear of

retribution from our superiors.

Michigan Medicine, I am disappointed

in you. You already are overwhelmed,

understaffed and unprepared. You will

lose some of the most brilliant medical

professionals in the world to this disease

if you don’t allow us to become better

protected. Instead of telling me to stay

safe, why don’t you give me a fighting

chance?

4 — Tuesday, April 7, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino

Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson

Joel Weiner
Erin White

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

EMILY CONSIDINE AND

MILES STEPHENSON

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

ANONYMOUS | OP-ED
Unprotected and disrespected - The Michigan Difference

I

n
periods
of
societal

uncertainty,
individuals

must turn to rationalism

and self-control rather than

relying on external factors.

It has been about 15 days since

the reality of COVID-19 settled

into the streets of Ann Arbor.

Classes were canceled, Greek life

was extinguished and students

began packing their bags — our

education was bookended not by

a reflection of accomplishments

but by an elusive and highly

contagious
virus.
The

strangeness of social distancing

creates
tension
between

boredom and intensity. In the

blink of an eye, the traditional

formats,
expectations
and

responsibilities of our education

have shifted. The proverbial rug

of syllabi and deadlines has been

yanked from beneath us, which

feels even more jarring because

of the United States national

government’s delayed reaction

(besides the immediate response

in regards to personal stocks) to

the virus.

Student life as we know it is

on hold, with no clear timeline

as to when we will shift back to

normal. Sadly, what we know as

normal will never be reclaimed

after the pandemic has slowed.

It is clear the world is under

a stage of significant transition,

where every critical decision

will have an immense impact

for years to come. My family

and I decided that it would be

best for me to come home to

our cottage in West Michigan,

and while my lake view and the

wildlife surrounding the area

is calming, I feel the intrinsic

motor of motivation grinding to

a halt. Personally, as classes have

become Pass/No Record Covid

and my additional responsibilities

shift online, it is difficult to not

be swept up in the discourse

pertaining to COVID-19. We

have all the time in the world

with no definitive end in sight,

but our lives have been dictated

by deadlines and sociality for

our entire collegiate careers,

so the pressure of progress and

achievement still hovers in our

personal quarantines. This being

said, all societal expectations and

sociological surges are becoming

less important in our personal

lives compared to the massive

shifts in health care, policy and

politics.

Right now, life seems to

be
controlled
primarily
by

external factors. We rely on the

politicians we have elected, the

health care systems currently in

place and late-stage capitalism

to handle this pandemic. With

each
additional
restriction,

the underlying fear and unrest

increases.

The protagonist of the new normal

ELIZABETH COOK | COLUMN

M

y kitchen island has

served as a place

where time gets lost in

long hours of insightful conversation.

Now, when time seems to stand still

and daily discussions don’t steer

far from the all-consuming, mind-

numbing coronavirus pandemic,

I often reminisce to one of my last

conversations
with
my
college

friends.

We’d landed on my favorite

discussion
of
all
time:
the

simulation
argument.
The

argument juggles the capacity of

technological advancement with

the probability that we are living

in a matrix. While it’s intriguing

to momentarily entertain such

questions,
philosophers
have

studied these kinds of thought

experiments for centuries. The

real-world implications of working

through these purely imaginative

exercises have been heavily debated

in philosophy and science, but one

thing many thinkers can agree on

is their importance. By limiting an

existing realm to either be a matrix

or to be a technologically lagging

society, thought experiments, like

the simulation argument, yield clear

intuition that can be translated into

real-world dilemmas. While life is

messier than a carefully crafted

hypothetical, popular culture offers

a medium in which we can further

consider philosophical questions

through movies, TV shows and

books.
The
actual
challenge,

however, is actively engaging in the

intelligent participation this kind

of content calls for — and allowing

any existential epiphanies to shape

our perception and way of life.

Existentialism
has
existed

as a prevalent theme in books

and movies, taking the form of

dystopian
futures,
dangerous

diseases and exaggerations of

reality, but these conversations

often circle back to the same

conclusion: “That’s just a big ‘what

if,’ though.” Well, what if we didn’t

take these interpretations lightly?

Instead, in times like these, we

should indulge in the uncertainty

of existence.

Among all the chaos it has

already caused, a global pandemic

serves as yet another reminder of

the frailty of human nature, and

as Albert Camus, author of the

commonly revisited novel “The

Plague,” suggests, the absurdity

of life. Written post-World War II

when existentialism began gaining

popularity, Camus’s classic novel

eerily mimics the current crisis

and, subsequently, the potential

lessons to be learned from it, as

many have already connected.

While Camus’ philosophies seemed

purely educational when plowing

through the 320-page book for an

elective class, its relevance and truth

feel unsettling in our current

context. It’s as if hypotheticals

in popular culture have some

truth behind them — as if we just

may be living in our own twisted

episode of “Black Mirror.”

From 1999’s “The Matrix” to

contemporary Netflix originals

like “The Society,” TV shows

and movies have encouraged

us to question reality and

contemplate our own purpose,

though it’s not as if we’ve

ever really needed this push.

Feelings of existential dread, or

intense feelings of indifference

triggered by external stimuli,

are common among college

students, especially when the

sleepless nights of studying

never seem to be enough and

successes are questioned at the

first stumble.

Embrace the existential crisis

EASHETA SHAH | COLUMN

Elizabeth Cook can be reached at

elizcook@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Easheta Shah can be reached at

shaheash@umich.edu.

Editor’s Note: The author of this

op-ed has been kept anonymous due

to their fear of retaliation.

The change has
left many of us

panicked.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan