OK, I see a little better where you're coming from now. Knowing that you have some expertise in this area puts your first comment in a different light. For wha

OK, I see a little better where you're coming from now. Knowing that you have some expertise in this area puts your first comment in a different light. For what it's worth, I did read your comment carefully. The reason I took exception (and reacted strongly, I fully admit) is that since the article addressed the bag thing, that makes it a red herring, so I would have expected you to filter it out of your list. Maybe that's overly rigid or overly literal of me, but that is why I reacted how I did. This device definitely intends to be less than a full-featured ventilator. On the Pneumatics page (http://op-vent.stanford.edu/docs/pneumatics.html http://op-vent.stanford.edu/docs/pneumatics.html) it explains their goal is to produce kind of a stripped down "simple ventilator with the features needed to treat COVID-19". So they believe it can be useful even though they know it lacks features. Whether they're right is certainly up for debate. They mention several optional features, which is interesting because maybe it means they're just trying to be flexible or maybe it means they don't really know what is the minimum necessary to have a net benefit (save more people than you kill) if we run out of full-featured ventilators.