Yes, I would certainly think that. Especially since given the timing of the article those on ventilators when the article was written probably had been on the ventilators for longer times on average, which doesn't bode well for them. Apparently a follow-up study is coming. I looked for it and did not find it yet.

The original paper is: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

My guess is that in the final analysis, NYC death figures for those on ventilators will be higher than they should have been (after adjusting for age etc.) The question then will be why.

But the real question, I think, is whether the death rates were higher than they would have been with less aggressive ventilator use.

Yes, I agree that seems likely. Because recovery seems slow (with and without ventilatory support), we won’t have a final accounting for quite some time. My point is more that the 85% number is considered an error and caused a correction in the published record.