3 ms·

This doesn't even pass the sniff test. If Dyson can produce an 80% effective version they obviously should.

arcticbull 7y ago
No, they shouldn't because an 80% effective ventilator might kill someone when a company that knows how to make ventilators could just produce a 100% effective one.
- 55555 7y ago
  This is the problem with treating everyone like a child. If I am dying of corona, and there are no more ventilators, I would like to be offered one that Dyson made out of cardboard, sticky tape, string, and wood glue so I can decide for myself if I want it. The potential risks of a medical device need to be weighed against the risks of not having it. Safety testing is less important when treating dying patients who have no other options.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    That may be the least coherent plan I've ever heard. If I offered you a leaf blower taped to a sack, that would absolutely make the situation worse. If you need a ventilator you're not in a position to make decisions because you need a ventilator. Come on, this is a fantasy and I think you know that. If you're lying there, gasping for air, that's not the time for the nurse to wander by and ask if you liked the Dyson BlowMaster 8000 or the Siemens 300A Servo Ventilator, and to explain to you the pros and cons. What you need is a proper, certified ventilator you can get by ramping production of existing ventilators, not starting over with some bits of sticky tape and string. You can force companies, in an emergency to produce them [1]. That's the only sane plan in an actual emergency. Let's briefly break down the "treat like a child" bit. A child is someone who's not capable of making decisions. Neither is someone who needs a ventilator. > Safety testing is less important when treating dying patients who have no other options. Safety testing is more important because sometimes applying a useless device will do more harm than doing literally nothing. Something is not always better than nothing. How else can we, to your point, weigh the risks of having it vs not having it if we don't evaluate them? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
    - andromeduck 7y ago
      That's a strawman if I ever saw one.
- darkerside 7y ago
  And if they can't make enough, waiting for a ventilator that never comes will 100% kill someone
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bawolff 7y ago
    That doesn't necessarily follow. I assume the term "need a ventilator" does not mean they have 100% chance of dying without a ventilator. Very few things in life are 100% certain. I imagine its more like, you have a 90% chance of dying without this, and a 10% chance of living (Numbers totally made up). Its also not the case that a faulty ventilator might be worth 80% of a real ventilator. It may very well be 0%, it might be -20%. If the ventilator is worthless, well there are some strong ethical conundrums of selling worthless cures to desperate people who will pay anything for the slightest hope of surviving. But that's if its worthless, its entirely imaginable that a faulty one reduces patients chances relative to no ventilator. Doing nothing and letting the body do its best, might have better outcomes then doing some sort of medical intervention incorrectly.
    - darkerside 7y ago
      If you need a ventilator, it's because your body cannot breathe without assistance. Many ventilators require intubation, which is an extremely invasive procedure. Ventilators don't boost chances, they are used to save you from dying, like a defibrillator and other forms of life support. Your assumption is essentially wrong.
      - djtriptych 7y ago
        "extremely invasive" isn't really a precise term, and sounds untrue here. It's a routine procedure, not considered dangerous.

No, they shouldn't because an 80% effective ventilator might kill someone when a company that knows how to make ventilators could just produce a 100% effective one.

55555 7y ago
This is the problem with treating everyone like a child. If I am dying of corona, and there are no more ventilators, I would like to be offered one that Dyson made out of cardboard, sticky tape, string, and wood glue so I can decide for myself if I want it. The potential risks of a medical device need to be weighed against the risks of not having it. Safety testing is less important when treating dying patients who have no other options.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  That may be the least coherent plan I've ever heard. If I offered you a leaf blower taped to a sack, that would absolutely make the situation worse. If you need a ventilator you're not in a position to make decisions because you need a ventilator. Come on, this is a fantasy and I think you know that. If you're lying there, gasping for air, that's not the time for the nurse to wander by and ask if you liked the Dyson BlowMaster 8000 or the Siemens 300A Servo Ventilator, and to explain to you the pros and cons. What you need is a proper, certified ventilator you can get by ramping production of existing ventilators, not starting over with some bits of sticky tape and string. You can force companies, in an emergency to produce them [1]. That's the only sane plan in an actual emergency. Let's briefly break down the "treat like a child" bit. A child is someone who's not capable of making decisions. Neither is someone who needs a ventilator. > Safety testing is less important when treating dying patients who have no other options. Safety testing is more important because sometimes applying a useless device will do more harm than doing literally nothing. Something is not always better than nothing. How else can we, to your point, weigh the risks of having it vs not having it if we don't evaluate them? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
  - andromeduck 7y ago
    That's a strawman if I ever saw one.
darkerside 7y ago
And if they can't make enough, waiting for a ventilator that never comes will 100% kill someone
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bawolff 7y ago
  That doesn't necessarily follow. I assume the term "need a ventilator" does not mean they have 100% chance of dying without a ventilator. Very few things in life are 100% certain. I imagine its more like, you have a 90% chance of dying without this, and a 10% chance of living (Numbers totally made up). Its also not the case that a faulty ventilator might be worth 80% of a real ventilator. It may very well be 0%, it might be -20%. If the ventilator is worthless, well there are some strong ethical conundrums of selling worthless cures to desperate people who will pay anything for the slightest hope of surviving. But that's if its worthless, its entirely imaginable that a faulty one reduces patients chances relative to no ventilator. Doing nothing and letting the body do its best, might have better outcomes then doing some sort of medical intervention incorrectly.
  - darkerside 7y ago
    If you need a ventilator, it's because your body cannot breathe without assistance. Many ventilators require intubation, which is an extremely invasive procedure. Ventilators don't boost chances, they are used to save you from dying, like a defibrillator and other forms of life support. Your assumption is essentially wrong.
    - djtriptych 7y ago
      "extremely invasive" isn't really a precise term, and sounds untrue here. It's a routine procedure, not considered dangerous.