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

Risky hack could double access to ventilators

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#61

Post by bmulholland »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #43

Have governments made orders (legal or purchase) for manufacture of ventilators by large scale companies? Presumably ventilators are a relatively niche product - what's in them that the World's industrial complexes can't ramp up production of within a couple of weeks? I imagine it's the pumps that's the limiting factor? Given humanity already has the working tested, established designs. Can't governments requisition…

Germany ordered 10,000 ventilators from a domestic manufacturer, though with delivery "over the next year" so it's unclear what the schedule will be.

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#62

Post by baxtr »

bmulholland wrote: post #61
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #43

Have governments made orders (legal or purchase) for manufacture of ventilators by large scale companies? Presumably ventilators are a relatively niche product - what's in them that the World's industrial complexes can't ramp up production of within a couple of weeks? I imagine it's the pumps that's the limiting factor? Given humanity already has the working tested, established designs. Can't governments requisition…

Germany ordered 10,000 ventilators from a domestic manufacturer, though with delivery "over the next year" so it's unclear what the schedule will be.

More like „within several weeks“...

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article206603525/Beatmungsger...

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#63

Post by _ZeD_ »

appleflaxen wrote: post #44
_ZeD_ wrote: post #40

"Risky hack" is not something I want to apply during a sanitary emergency

it's all about tradeoffs of course you don't want to but in italy, fatalities increased because there aren't enough ventilators. US is days away from that point so if it's a matter of no ventilator or a dirty ventilator, most people will take the dirty vent. after all: the sanitary crisis is for Coronavirus, and you already have it.

I was wondering about he infamous Liston's most famous case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston#Liston's_most_fa...

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#64

Post by polytely »

hnarn wrote: post #58
kaetemi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half a dozen somehow sounds more impressive than six...

Tangentially (this is HN after all) I also feel like "half a dozen" gives a more fuzzy confidence interval than a regular number ("6"). Of course, half a dozen literally means the amount 6, but am I the only one that reads them slightly differently? I almost see an implicit "about" before the phrase: "[about] half a dozen".

It's actually a really interesting subject, I think it's closely related to something called "words of estimate probability", the wikipedia article [0] is a good startingpoint.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probabilit...

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#65

Post by mrob »

Is negative pressure ventilation any use in treating Covid-19? Iron lungs are easier to build than positive pressure ventilators. I imagine many HN readers could build something like a Both respirator[0] in their garage over a weekend. Using negative pressure ventilation might be a better option than trying to attach multiple patients to a positive pressure ventilator.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_respirator

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#66

Post by maxerickson »

Continuous wrote: post #48

This is ridiculous! Hacks are ok with web and app deployments where you are able to patch and fix to your heart's content and the damage is not life threatening. I have worked with the medical industry, the amount of formal validation and verification that goes through on software is insane compared to what we have in the "move fast and break things" world. Even if it is "temporary" and "desperate" I would stay away…

So if you end up in a situation where a doctor is deciding whether to put multiple people on a ventilator, is the idea that they would certainly pick you?

You don't seem to be reacting to the situations that the idea addresses, situations where there is an immediate shortage of ventilators.

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#67

Post by atdrummond »

There are some odd quotes and grammatical mistakes in this article. For example: “You wouldn’t want to put a patient with severe bronchospasm [sudden contractions of bronchial muscles in the lungs] with a patient that does not have bronchospasm because that would.” Likewise, one of the cited authors’ names, Babcock, is misspelled in the piece as Babcok.

I’m not qualified to assess whether this risk is worth it but I am surprised that Vice’s editing is so shoddy. It certainly doesn’t engender faith in the veracity/accuracy of their reporting.

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#68

Post by fifteenforty »

mrob wrote: post #65

Is negative pressure ventilation any use in treating Covid-19? Iron lungs are easier to build than positive pressure ventilators. I imagine many HN readers could build something like a Both respirator[0] in their garage over a weekend. Using negative pressure ventilation might be a better option than trying to attach multiple patients to a positive pressure ventilator. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_respirato…

Theoretically yes, in fact it may actually be better. We have largely abandoned negative pressure ventilatory support for a number of practical reasons. Not least is that once you have intubated a patient, they are less contagious!

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#69

Post by JshWright »

mrob wrote: post #65

Is negative pressure ventilation any use in treating Covid-19? Iron lungs are easier to build than positive pressure ventilators. I imagine many HN readers could build something like a Both respirator[0] in their garage over a weekend. Using negative pressure ventilation might be a better option than trying to attach multiple patients to a positive pressure ventilator. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_respirato…

No, in the case of ARDS, you need positive pressure (especially "back pressure" during exhalation) in order to keep the alveoli open.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_end-expiratory_pres...

Re: Risky hack could double access to ventilators

#70

Post by fifteenforty »

JshWright wrote: post #69
mrob wrote: post #65

Is negative pressure ventilation any use in treating Covid-19? Iron lungs are easier to build than positive pressure ventilators. I imagine many HN readers could build something like a Both respirator[0] in their garage over a weekend. Using negative pressure ventilation might be a better option than trying to attach multiple patients to a positive pressure ventilator. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_respirato…

No, in the case of ARDS, you need positive pressure (especially "back pressure" during exhalation) in order to keep the alveoli open. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_end-expiratory_pres...

We are talking about negative pressure mechanical ventilation. Positive end expiratory pressure is just one way of splinting open alveoli. Maintaining recruitment and V/Q matching in ARDS can be achieved in multiple ways, including negative pressure mechanical ventilation.
Post reply on HN