Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Ventilator Project

opensourceventilator.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#121

Post by easytiger »

joe_the_user wrote: post #107
easytiger wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 1/5 of those cases require hospitalization eventually They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim. I don't know what your agenda is here but it is entirely clear you have no desire to honestly engage regarding the facts. Certainly a complete misreading, at best, of data presented. It clearly deals with the symptoms during the while life cycle of the disease. What precisely is your goal wi…

They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim. All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post. I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey fin…

> You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.

You are clearly or for an argument. 1/5th cases are not as you say. That's a lie. Plain and simple

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#122

Post by lern_too_spel »

easytiger wrote: post #94
lern_too_spel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

No it isn't. If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look. As of Monday, - 274,504 people tested - 8,400 cases - 81 deaths - 0.96% CFR > so CFR is very close to IFR On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronav...

> If you are asking someone where they get numbers from them write some incorrect numbers in the pursuit of whatever agenda is not a good look.

> As of Monday

> - 81 deaths

> - 0.96% CFR

I should say the same of you. Why are you posting numbers from 5 days ago? As of yesterday when I made that comment, Korea has 102 deaths and 1.16% CFR.

>> so CFR is very close to IFR

> On what basis do you make that statement. It's clearly indefensible

On the basis of the beginning of that same sentence, which you inexplicably did not quote.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#123

Post by arcticbull »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #82
arcticbull wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well in China they seem to have forced everyone to stay home? Well, it's China. > The UK appears to have decided allowing 500,000 of us to die was a bad idea and we're now on "lockdown". 500,000 people dying wasn't going to happen. Korea's death rate is closer to 0.4%, almost entirely the older folks who were to be quarantined at home during this process anyways. Korea's death rate for under-40's is 0-0.1%, so at w…

Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#124

Post by lern_too_spel »

arcticbull wrote: post #123
lern_too_spel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%.

> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%. That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...

> and I was referring to this data [1]

You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU.

> That's not how CFR works

That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#125

Post by arcticbull »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #124
arcticbull wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where are you getting this 0.4% number from? Korea is testing extensively, so CFR is very close to IFR, and CFR is above 1%. That's not how CFR works, and I was referring to this data [1] which showed folks under 30 with a CFR of 0%, 30-50 at 0.1% and 50-59 at 0.4%, and a total of around 0.69% at the time the data was published. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-a...

> and I was referring to this data [1] You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU. > That's not how CFR works That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.

No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#126

Post by lern_too_spel »

arcticbull wrote: post #125
lern_too_spel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I was referring to this data [1] You were referring to data more than a week old, when the infected cases had neither time to recover nor time to die. The latest figure from yesterday is 1.16% of all cases according to JHU. > That's not how CFR works That is exactly how CFR works. If you test more people, C will be closer to I.

No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.

No. IFR is mortality rate at the end of the epidemic. CFR exactly matches IFR if all infections are diagnosed.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#127

Post by TaylorAlexander »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #44
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5

The page isn’t loading so I’m not sure what they’ve got, but I’m still trying to get answers to a question I have. I did research Tuesday and it seems like ventilators are positive pressure only, and they cycle between a low pressure and a high pressure. If this is the case, could an air compressor with a regulator be used as the pressure source? If so, a small device with just two pressure regulators and an electron…

To quote an earlier comment of mine: So there are four main ways for breathing machines to be powered: 1) By compressed air from a wall port (majority of ICU machines) 2) With bellows (anesthesia machines) 3) Turbine, either dynamic or constant speed with a proportional valve (home use or patient transport) 4) Piston Let's assume that we use a pneumatic device driven by centrally purified air as that is simplest. The…

Thank you! I will copy your comment to the thread on my website and link back to your comment here. Feel free to share your reading, but the stress of feeling like I can help is a bit much. I’m going to collect information but for now I’m hoping the major manufacturers committed to ventilator manufacturing are going to pull through.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#128

Post by joe_the_user »

chrisseaton wrote: post #114
joe_the_user wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim. All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post. I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey fin…

> My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation. It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread. You may think it’s ok because the ends justify the means, but it’s still wrong and dangerous.

It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread.

I have given the reasons that I believe 1/5 is in no way overestimate. I don't have any to think you are arguing in bad faith yourself, simply that you're mistaken on a very important point. However, you are resorting imputing bad faith on my part simply through your disagreement with my argument. That's a pretty bad way to argue and I think indicates a poor approach to this critical question.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#129

Post by arcticbull »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #126
arcticbull wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cfr is only I at the end of the epidemic. Either way I slides the data based on those likely exposed.

No. IFR is mortality rate at the end of the epidemic. CFR exactly matches IFR if all infections are diagnosed.

No because you don’t know how many of them will die. In your definition you know the R not the F. Look, I’m quoting the WHO report. You’re welcome to take it up with them.

Re: Open Source Ventilator Project

#130

Post by arcticbull »

whatshisface wrote: post #67
arcticbull wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not triage if the device you have is worthless. It's not a medical resource if it's not fit for purpose or if the people using it aren't trained.

How do you know that none of these open design devices are fit for purpose? There are an awful lot of them, and the people behind this one have a lot of credentials...

Nobody knows. That’s the point. These are some fly by night home made hobby projects not medical devices. This is why we have the defense procurement act not the “why don’t you give it your best shot at home and see what you come up with” act.
Post reply on HN