3 ms·

I think there is confusion, on the videos and picture they are using medical equipment, it's just used in a different way.

bena 8y ago
The point dmix makes is that "a lack of regulation is saving lives". The device doesn't have to be tested, it doesn't require licensed operators, etc. And I was agreeing that it is saving lives, but that it is not particularly indicative that regulation is killing people. That the incident of a disease may be so prevalent or that access to modern hospitals may be so scarce that in certain cases, taking an unregulated approach is better than no approach. This is in India. This would never be discovered in a developed nation because there is no need for it. A ventilator has a far better success rate. However, in India, in other developing nations, this is necessary. And the fact that it is simple to set up, that it can be set up by someone with little training, etc are all benefits in those situations. That even with what would be considered a pretty poor mortality rate, it's still better than the alternatives at their disposal.
- kragen 8y ago
  You say, "A ventilator has a far better success rate." I am skeptical of this statement; what are your sources? I would expect this setup to have the same success rate as any other bubble CPAP machine.
  - omegabravo 8y ago
    it would be hard to cite source on a new device/discovery/method such as this as there would not be any. The comment higher up the chain covered some of the potential failure methods of the new system. > If you lose 10% to contaminated bottles, 15% to various malfunctions, and another 5% for things related to the procedure I can't even begin to consider, that's 30% mortality rate for this procedure.
    - kragen 8y ago
      There's no reason to expect that those rates would be higher for this equipment design than for the $15000 one, rather than lower. That comment also seems to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what's being discussed, since contaminated bottles are vanishingly unlikely to infect the patient — the air goes from the patient to the bottle, through a dry plastic tube, not vice versa.
      - bena 8y ago
        You do understand the numbers and examples were made up to illustrate a point, that even if it weren't as good as a modern hospital that it's better than the current alternative. Discussing the minutiae is immaterial.

bena 8y ago

The point dmix makes is that "a lack of regulation is saving lives". The device doesn't have to be tested, it doesn't require licensed operators, etc. And I was agreeing that it is saving lives, but that it is not particularly indicative that regulation is killing people. That the incident of a disease may be so prevalent or that access to modern hospitals may be so scarce that in certain cases, taking an unregulated approach is better than no approach. This is in India. This would never be discovered in a developed nation because there is no need for it. A ventilator has a far better success rate. However, in India, in other developing nations, this is necessary. And the fact that it is simple to set up, that it can be set up by someone with little training, etc are all benefits in those situations. That even with what would be considered a pretty poor mortality rate, it's still better than the alternatives at their disposal.

kragen 8y ago
You say, "A ventilator has a far better success rate." I am skeptical of this statement; what are your sources? I would expect this setup to have the same success rate as any other bubble CPAP machine.
- omegabravo 8y ago
  it would be hard to cite source on a new device/discovery/method such as this as there would not be any. The comment higher up the chain covered some of the potential failure methods of the new system. > If you lose 10% to contaminated bottles, 15% to various malfunctions, and another 5% for things related to the procedure I can't even begin to consider, that's 30% mortality rate for this procedure.
  - kragen 8y ago
    There's no reason to expect that those rates would be higher for this equipment design than for the $15000 one, rather than lower. That comment also seems to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what's being discussed, since contaminated bottles are vanishingly unlikely to infect the patient — the air goes from the patient to the bottle, through a dry plastic tube, not vice versa.
    - bena 8y ago
      You do understand the numbers and examples were made up to illustrate a point, that even if it weren't as good as a modern hospital that it's better than the current alternative. Discussing the minutiae is immaterial.