Do you think everyone involved is physically present? The gp was absolutely accurate that you guys have no idea how modern healthcare works and this had nothing to do with externally introduced malware.
This sounds a bit like someone just got ran over by a truck because the driver couldn’t see them so people ask why trucks are so big that they’re dangerous and the response is “you just don’t know how trucks work” rather than “yeah maybe drivers should be able to see pedestrians”.
If modern medicine is dangerous and fragile because of network connected equipment then that should be fixed even if the way it currently works doesn’t allow it.
This is a completely different discussion. They absolutely should be reliable. The part that is a complete non starter is not being networked because it ignores that telemedicine, pacs integration, and telerobotics exist.
If you don't understand why it has to be networked with extremely bad fallback to paper, then I suggest working in healthcare for a bit before pontificating on how everything should just go back to the stone age.
Networking puts their reliability into risk. As shown here, as shown in ransomware cases. It is not the first time something like this happen.
The question is not whether or not hospitals need internet at all or to go back into printing things in paper or whatever nobody ever said. The question is whether everything in the hospital should be connected to the internet. Again the example used was simple. Having the computer processing and exporting the data from an MRI machine connected online in order to transfer the data, vs using a separate computer to transfer the data and the first computer is offline. This is how we are supposed to transfer similar data at my work for security reasons. I am not sure why it cannot happen in there. If you cannot transfer data through that computer, there could be an emergency backup plan. But you need to solve only the transfering data part. Not everything.
