It can take years to get a manuscript published once submitted, let alone the time it takes to collect the data, analyze the data, and prepared for submission.

In no way am I suggesting circumventing the normal process for assessing outcomes with qualitative prospective, randomized, controlled data. But in a situation like this you have to realize that until you have extensively peer reviewed research, you can and should make decisions based on the best information that you have available. That may simply be a result of case studies or retrospective analysis. While they're nowhere close to the more accurate types of studies, they can and are providing a whole lot of worthwhile insight and information. Info that most definitely is influencing the best practices and courses of treatment of Covid patients since there are no peer reviewed research based best practices or courses of treatment that exist presently.

Much of the recent info coming out - and it's all still new, so it's understandably going to take time to make sense of it - points to covid having as much of an impact on compromising cardiac/circulatory mechanisms as it does respiratory ones. I've heard suggestions along the lines of what SWG is talking about, but not exactly as he put it.

Hopefully care providers and decision makers are quickly able to attain an accurate understanding of the mechanism of how this virus does it's damage so it can be most directly addressed. In the mean time, adaptability is the key. Unfortunately, many care providers will do tomorrow what they did 3 weeks ago instead of assessing what they are doing and listening to other ideas out there and making different decisions as indicated.