It was my understanding ventilators also do CO2/O2 analysis to understand how to work on the fly, how would that work in this case?
Risky hack could double access to ventilators
21–30 of 164 posts
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#22Cross infection? F! This solution might be worse than the disease.
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on whether you flatten out the growth rate. It won't/can't keep growing like that when everyone is sheltering in place.
Seems likely. Italy is currently seeing a 13% increase per day while the US is now very close to a 50% increase per day. There are news reports showing beaches and bars in the US are still fully packed. It probably relates the US culture of disregarding expert advice and doing the opposite to "own the scientists"
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on whether you flatten out the growth rate. It won't/can't keep growing like that when everyone is sheltering in place.
Seems likely. Italy is currently seeing a 13% increase per day while the US is now very close to a 50% increase per day. There are news reports showing beaches and bars in the US are still fully packed. It probably relates the US culture of disregarding expert advice and doing the opposite to "own the scientists"
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#25Cross infection? F! This solution might be worse than the disease.
More than one person needs the only ventilator. Could you explain how they are worse of sharing a ventilator than being dead?
What if you get cross infected with HIV? You get saved from the coronavirus, only to get HIV and die of AIDS. This is not a good trade off either.
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#26They kept giving reasons why this might not work... * not tested in humans * cross infection potential * different sized people mess it up ... but I see no reason why any of these things would stop me from using this in the real world. If things are bad enough that we need to do this, then we should be able to find relatively similar sized people. Cross contamination is not a concern when someone is dying here and no…
> Cross contamination is not a concern when someone is dying here and now and likely has the same disease as the guy next to him who is also dying If COVID evolves into multiple strains, then there is a real risk of cross-infection that would make the immune system forced to work harder? Moreover, a lot of the pneumonia deaths are not due to covid itself but rather due to opportunistic infections (often bacterial) th…
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#27Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than one person needs the only ventilator. Could you explain how they are worse of sharing a ventilator than being dead?
What types of infections are transmitted? Is it blood borne? What if you get cross infected with HIV? You get saved from the coronavirus, only to get HIV and die of AIDS. This is not a good trade off either.
Dying from COVID19 in the next few days vs risking HIV and maybe AIDS years or decades later is a pretty obvious choice.
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#29Cross infection? F! This solution might be worse than the disease.
More than one person needs the only ventilator. Could you explain how they are worse of sharing a ventilator than being dead?
Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
What types of infections are transmitted? Is it blood borne? What if you get cross infected with HIV? You get saved from the coronavirus, only to get HIV and die of AIDS. This is not a good trade off either.
> You get saved from the coronavirus, only to get HIV and die of AIDS. This is not a good trade off either. Dying from COVID19 in the next few days vs risking HIV and maybe AIDS years or decades later is a pretty obvious choice.