"A war situation" is precisely when you need this sort of thinking: the modern ethical framework for medical research with interventions is heavily influenced by "The Nuremberg Code". I don't think we need to describe in detail why people thought that code was necessary.

In most of these cases, it is highly unlikely that any significant number of the patients will withhold their consent: so to not ask it is basically saying "we can't be bothered", there's no obvious scientific basis for such a waiver. When patients are incapacitated there are equivalent frameworks which take their personal circumstances into consideration.

There is nothing to suggest that any patient has withheld consent, just that the requirement to get consent in written form was waived. Given how sick these patients were this is reasonable.

Time is of the essence here. If I was put in the situation these researcher are in I would act first and take the risk of being put on trial later. Real ethics means sometimes you have to do more than just follow rules.

Yup. "If you agree please cough in this paper" does not sound like a very smart move.

Isolation measures and obtaining information are clearly important; so too is acting ethically, and I would argue that it is _precisely_ these sort of circumstances that should prompt us to consider this. And, owing to selection bias in the cases presented, the death rate of this coronavirus is likely far lower than hyped.

Wow this is the first I've heard of the infection and death rate being 'lower than hyped'.

I do believe it's troubling times for everyone near this virus and we need as much information of the virus as possible. This is going past a regular 'patient confidentiality' line and into a 'prevent a possible disaster from occurring by getting on top of it soon'.

> Wow this is the first I've heard of the infection and death rate being 'lower than hyped'.

GP only said the death rate was lower (which necessarily means the infection rate is higher, not lower, assuming all the deaths used in the reported rate are real deaths associated with the disease of concern.)

Nothing about this is a war situation. This just reads like reactionary fear mongering.

Nothing indeed; besides China having put 20m+ people on lockdown, 5m having fled the cities possibly carrying the virus, it having already reached Europe, the US and Australia, doctors on the ground reporting over 100k infected, and the fatality count racing past the hundreds. Enjoy your breakfast.

...and exactly how do you know this?

I don't know, Coronaviridae have neither oil nor WMD?

There might be cause for some concern like for any form of disease, but calling it a war is ridiculous and inappropiate to describe the situation. Even a well intentioned reading of the statement leaves much to wish for.

The common cold kills more than 50,000 people a year. 90% of media reports are intentionally worded to dramatize the situation, so I don't think anything warrants this classification with respect to the people deceased.

This reaction is precisely the reason why some might think about restricting information about infections or simliar health hazards to the public.

So you think the Chinese government has put 50 million people into lockdown just to dramatise the situation for some sort of media beat up?

If we are lucky the problem is not as bad as it appears, but so far nothing I have seen suggests this is anything other than very, very serious.