Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United States

Ford, GE To Produce 50,000 Ventilators In 100 Days (cnbc.com) 151

Ford Motor and GE Healthcare plan to produce 50,000 ventilators within the next 100 days at a facility in Michigan to assist with the coronavirus pandemic. CNBC reports: Production of the critical care devices is expected to begin with 500 United Auto Workers union members the week of April 20, according to executives at both companies. Ford's Rawsonville Components Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan will be able to produce 30,000 ventilators a month after early-July, officials said. The companies expect to produce 1,500 by the end of April, 12,000 by the end of May and 50,000 by July 4, officials said.

The design of the ventilator is being licensed by GE Healthcare from Florida-based Airon Corp., a small, privately held company specializing in high-tech pneumatic life support products. The devices are simpler, less complex than GE ventilators Ford previously said it would assist the company in producing at other facilities .

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ford, GE To Produce 50,000 Ventilators In 100 Days

Comments Filter:
  • by khchung ( 462899 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @05:15AM (#59891788) Journal

    By the end of May this would be mostly over in the US. They are too late.

    Italy is having their new cases coming down, after (surprise, surprise!) about 3 weeks of lockdown since 9th March. The same with Spain.

    In another 2 months, by end of May, either most of the US population would be infected (then 12,000 would be too few to make a difference), or by end-April the lockdown measures would be having its effect and new cases would be slowing down. Unless the US was so stupid as to relax the measures at that time, with some luck, by end-May we should be seeing the tail of the epidemic even though the death toll would be horrible.

    They could donate the ventilators to African and South American countries though, their epidemic was just starting, and many countries would be in dire situation in May and June.

    • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @05:33AM (#59891814)

      It's not crazy late.. This Virus will be with us for a LONG time and social distancing is both extending how long this initial wave takes and killing our economy so it will need to end eventually.

      Besides, we need to restock the national stockpile which is now largely depleted, the next pandemic can happen at anytime and if we've learned anything it is that we need to be ready before it starts. Second, we would like to help others when it hits them. And last, but not least, we don't know how long this will be - yet - and we DO KNOW that there will be a rebound once we start to return to work as well as next fall when flu season traditionally gets going next winter. We may still need these things.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by tg123 ( 1409503 )

          They keep them for a few years. Then they will cut the cost. Then they will give them to Africa, because they are broken anyway and that is a way to deduct them from some budget and taxes. Then there will be a need for them and the whole thing starts over again.

          My God your cynical but I think your right the corporate mindset is do anything to avoid and reduce paying taxes.
          "That money is ours !!!"

          • My God your cynical but I think your right the corporate mindset is do anything to avoid and reduce paying taxes. "That money is ours !!!"

            Two things: "you're", not "your", and do you, when you do you do your taxes, just toss a bit extra Uncle Sam's way? After all, you've just stated that it's wrong to take all the tax breaks allowed....

            • My God your cynical but I think your right the corporate mindset is do anything to avoid and reduce paying taxes. "That money is ours !!!"

              Two things: "you're", not "your", and do you, when you do you do your taxes, just toss a bit extra Uncle Sam's way? After all, you've just stated that it's wrong to take all the tax breaks allowed....

              Just a gentle bit of ribbing here, but "...and do you, when you do you do your taxes..." is just a bit clumsy there, don't you think? However, I agree with your point. I suspect there are very few (read none) that reject the opportunity to claim their legal deductions on their personal or business taxes. But there will always be some who complain when big businesses or wealthy people claim their deductions. Don't like the tax code, replace the people in charge of establishing and maintaining the tax code.

              • by Pascoea ( 968200 )

                Don't like the tax code, replace the people in charge of establishing and maintaining the tax code.

                You mean replace the lobbyists and other special interest groups?

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by uncqual ( 836337 )

                  Lobbyists get exactly one vote at the polls - just like you and me (and they don't necessarily even vote for those politicians supporting positions they are lobbying for).

                  "Special Interest Groups" (like the ACLU, FSF, Teamsters, or NRA) don't get even one vote at the polls. They merely represent those individuals who share their goals.

                  For example, the NRA is not powerful because it's the NRA -- it's powerful because a significant segment of the voting public shares the general goals of the NRA and place som

            • by tg123 ( 1409503 )

              My God your cynical but I think your right the corporate mindset is do anything to avoid and reduce paying taxes. "That money is ours !!!"

              Two things: "you're", not "your", and do you, when you do you do your taxes, just toss a bit extra Uncle Sam's way? After all, you've just stated that it's wrong to take all the tax breaks allowed....

              Opps you're ....
              I have no problem paying taxes, by the way I'm not an American , as I know it is going towards funding of Hospitals , Schools, Roads, etc.

              After all, you've just stated that it's wrong to take all the tax breaks allowed....

              It means less social services will be provided by the Government and experience tells me that society is poorer as you get increased poverty , homelessness and crime when Governments don't fund social services.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The peak will be in the next month most likely. The US will need a lot more than 50k extra ventilators. That's why you need to stockpile.

        • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @08:48AM (#59892318) Journal

          No. The peak for the first wave will likely be at the end of next month. As we go back to work a second and third wave will come in especially by next fall just like with the regular flu.

          Until we have billions upon billions of vacines like we do for other diseases we will need these ventilators. This is a nasty bug and it shows how in the next 50 years as we advanced with computers and electronics we will need the same for RNA vaccines (still in research) and 3d printing to make stuff in demand FAST. Medicine still is not innovating and neither is manufacturing. Sure we have computers now attached to robots and new vacines and drugs but the base line technology and methods are 50 years old. It is not practical anymore.

      • by Jzanu ( 668651 )
        It is not "killing" any economy to practice social distancing in the face of a pandemic, to the contrary it is the rush to return to normal that kills economies [ssrn.com].
        • by Jzanu ( 668651 )
          Summary excerpt (NPI means non-pharmaceutical intervention, meaning everything that can be done with vaccines): "Our analysis yields two main insights. First, we find that areas that were more severely affected by the 1918 Flu Pandemic see a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity. Second, we find that early and extensive NPIs have no adverse effect on local economic outcomes. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experience a relative increase in real economi
        • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          Yes except there is no real proof the social distancing and stay-at-home orders accomplish anything at all. Remember nobody every put any numbers on those curve bending charts; that was just a nice conceptualization.

          The statistics so far in every country pretty much so that infections grow exponentially until suddenly they don't (probably because most of the population has been exposed). Given all these nations have responded with differing degrees of stringency and the curve has been basically been the sam

    • I can see this lasting a least until October for the US as they have a high amount of infections spread over a large area
      which will take a large effort by the US medical system to stop.

      The US doesn't have Universal medical care which will mean the Poor can not even get access to needed help and
      there is a large Homeless population who live in "3rd World" conditions.

      There is the possibility that this can't be stopped in the US until next year when vaccines for the virus start to become available.
      • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @05:56AM (#59891848)

        I can see this lasting a least until October for the US as they have a high amount of infections spread over a large area which will take a large effort by the US medical system to stop. The US doesn't have Universal medical care which will mean the Poor can not even get access to needed help and there is a large Homeless population who live in "3rd World" conditions.

        WTH? We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. THEN, they cannot simply turn you back out on the street to die if you are in need of medical care, but MUST at least arrange care for you. That may include getting you on Medicaid or other public assistance and transferring you to a facility which agrees to accept you. Being homeless doesn't prevent you from getting critical medical care.

        Now of the homeless person doesn't want to stay in the hospital, they cannot be imprisoned, hospitals must let them leave. This problem isn't going to be fixed by having single payer, or publicly funded healthcare. Mentally ill patients will die from lack of care but it will be due to their own choice and our respecting their rights.

        So stop with this lie that because we don't have single payer the homeless are going without healthcare services. It's NOT true. They may not get PREVENTATIVE care or treatment for chronic illnesses, but they have healthcare options for critical conditions AND if they availed themselves of the Medicaid option they could get free medical care if they cared to try.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @06:06AM (#59891868)

          WTH? We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. THEN, they cannot simply turn you back out on the street to die if you are in need of medical care, but MUST at least arrange care for you.

          So was this fake news?

          Teenage boy whose death was linked to COVID-19 turned away from urgent care for not having insurance [independent.co.uk]

          The mayor said the teen “didn’t have insurance, so they did not treat him” when he arrived at an urgent care facility in the area. The medical staff then told the child to go to a local public hospital.

          • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @07:15AM (#59891996)

            WTH? We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. THEN, they cannot simply turn you back out on the street to die if you are in need of medical care, but MUST at least arrange care for you.

            So was this fake news?

            Teenage boy whose death was linked to COVID-19 turned away from urgent care for not having insurance [independent.co.uk]

            The mayor said the teen “didn’t have insurance, so they did not treat him” when he arrived at an urgent care facility in the area. The medical staff then told the child to go to a local public hospital.

            IF he wasn't requiring critical medical care when he presented himself to the doctors, then it was his failure to seek medical care at the correct time. IF the doctors didn't evaluate him properly and he DID require critical medical care then they violated the law and need to be held responsible.

            Mistakes where apparently made in this case.. But it doesn't change the fact that hospitals (not urgent care facilities by the way) and emergency rooms are REQUIRED by LAW to provide you critical medical care without regard to your ability to pay. They CANNOT turn you away.

            So this story isn't about the law or what *should* have happened. It's about a mistake that somebody made. It's not about not having insurance causing some kid's death, it's about a medical decision that was a mistake. Who made that bad decision is an open question, one likely to be argued in court.

            • You've obviously haven't visited an ER anytime recently. ERs are in fact turning patients away by discouraging them from seeking emergency help and pointing them to local urgent care facilities as a way to be seen sooner. For those that don't, they leave them stuck in triage for hours. Todd's was going on well before the outbreak and is no surprise that this kid went to an urgent care since that's what hospitals and insurance providers have been pushing people towards instead of visiting the ER. They may no

            • by ToasterMonkey ( 467067 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @09:39AM (#59892496) Homepage

              IF he wasn't requiring critical medical care when he presented himself to the doctors, then it was his failure to seek medical care at the correct time.

              Most people don't know the difference between a walk-in clinic, urgent care, and a ER. They certainly do not have a card in the wallet or a pamphlet in their mailbox that says they can go a a facility marked XYZ, and they will HAVE to treat you. That is a system of last resort, not universal health care. It's only well known to people that bitch about paying for it, not the people that can't afford care and haven't seen a doctor of any sort in ten years.

              To call an ambulance or not is still a financial decision for many people, probably most. Nobody KNOWS if you're going to go into cardiac arrest on the way to a hospital, if you KNEW that, everyone would choose the no matter the cost option.

              You can't deny the effects of people making financial decisions in the last moments of their lives. They aren't planning on dying, they are planning on coming out with medical bills, and that frames their decision making. Saying they would have could have found someone that "had" to save them if they'd chosen better options doesn't wash anyone's hands.

              When does anyone take ownership and say our healthcare system is at fault for that, if you can blame the dead guy for not knowing the difference between urgent care and an ER??

              • OK.. But my point was, and still is, you will get critical medical care without regard to your ability to pay. You get critical care, nobody can deny you.

                You want to argue that the way you get care is too hard, to confusing, or difficult, then I'm not going to take you to task on that. Sure, for some folks, you are right, it's too confusing. But I don't have any clue how you fix *that* problem and I dare say you don't either. Even if you had insurance, the same considerations would be true. I have insu

          • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @07:57AM (#59892112)

            An urgent care facility is not a hospital. In fact, they are generally not well equipped to deal with emergency/critical care situations and will send people to a hospital.

            Basically they work for non-emergency general practitioner situations on a walk-in basis rather than appointment.

            Of course, this arrangement is terrible for day to day because:
            -People who are getting mandatory care have frequently let things go to the point where they finally can't be refused, and require much more expensive measures to try to come back from something that could have been handled much more efficiently when caught early, and with more limited success
            -The ER waiting room can get clogged by uninsured sick people waiting for triage that could have gone to their own doctor or an urgent care facility instead if they had insurance.

          • by Atrox Canis ( 1266568 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @09:41AM (#59892502)
            From that same article... "However, Los Angeles’ County Department of Public Health later said the teen’s death was taken off a list of deaths associated with Covid-19 in the area. The department said the CDC would complete an investigation into the teen’s death. It remained unclear what symptoms he may have been experiencing prior to his death."
          • Urgent care centers with rare exception do not operate as emergency rooms. They have a rather limited range of stuff they can do, and most certainly were not equipped to help the patient, regardless of his ability to pay. You go to one when you have a sprain, simple fracture, the seasonal cold, drug tests, and other stuff for which you'd normally see a family physician. You don't go to one when you have significant trauma, or you're on death's door step with a disease.

            That's why he was sent to a real hospit

        • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @06:22AM (#59891898)

          We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

          In most sane countries "universal health care" treats you without you wishing you were dead when you get the bill.

          • We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

            In most sane countries "universal health care" treats you without you wishing you were dead when you get the bill.

            IF you get a bill, then the evidence says you got your medical care... SO my point was valid, you get critical medical care without consideration of your ability to pay. Yea they may bill you, but you got treated.

            If you want to argue about medical debt, have at it.. Just understand it's a separate debate and proves my statement right.

            So the argument that you don't get medical care without insurance is incorrect...

            • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

              We DO have universal health care by law. Hospitals MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

              In most sane countries "universal health care" treats you without you wishing you were dead when you get the bill.

              IF you get a bill, then the evidence says you got your medical care...

              You got initial care to stabilize you. But if you require ongoing care you are SOL without again going to the ER which wastes resources. Much cheaper and efficient to provide preventive care BEFORE someone is on the verge of death.

            • by Junta ( 36770 )

              Though that medical care is likely too late for a lot of situations that would be caught earlier in a strategy that most people would consider 'universal health care'.

              It's not particularly worth bragging that the government only mandates that critical care be provided, and does so without funding that requirement exacerbating emergency care costs for everyone as hospitals have to try to gouge everyone to be prepared for the unfunded care they must provide.

            • IF you get a bill

              IF? *IF** maybe bold and italicize it as well IF ? What kind of non USA country do you live in where there is any open question on IF you get a bill?

              SO my point was valid

              Your point was valid. So was mine. Just to re-iterate, my point is that you are either completely dishonest or willfully ignorant about the term "universal healthcare". Universal healthcare does not mean, nor has ever meant or simply been limited to the fact that you can get healthcare.

              Go take your republican propaganda to someone who will buy your bullshit. T

            • So the argument that you don't get medical care without insurance is incorrect...

              Also learn to read. You may realise that I said none of what you just wrote.

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • I think a more accurate term for what you are describing is "Universal Emergency Medical Care." When you describe the current arrangement as "Universal Health Care," it suggests that everyone has some sort of readily accessible healthcare--not that there is a subset of critical ailments and symptoms for which treatment cannot be denied.

              It's sort of like saying we have universal funeral arrangement because the state will dispose of your body.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In reality poorer people don't want to go to hospital in the first place for fear of racking up debts. The treatment isn't free, the hospital will pursue them for payment. It's for emergency care only too, you certainly aren't going to get any "free" preventative care or even treatment for anything less than a life-threatening illness. They will wait until you are imminently about to die before helping and then stop as soon as you are stable.

          Are people getting free COVID-19 tests? Will the hospital treat th

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @07:54AM (#59892100)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • $1000 is far too low. My son had to go to the ER to get 3 stitches in his (broken) nose two months ago, and the hospital bill was $1850 AFTER the insurance negotiated discount. If I was a cash customer, the charges would have been $3000. He was there for 3 hours. The doctor bill was separate and reasonable (~$250). I realize those with public health care will be appalled by the doctor bill, let alone the facility charge. Do you think these amounts would cause people to avoid care they need?

            What rea
        • Sure they MUST treat you. But will you go in the hospital if it means you can loose your home? At $30,000 a day for treatment it can be devastating to all but the wealthy.

          Europeans and Ausies reading this comment are probably HORRIFIED by my first sentence but my bill to the hospital was $30,000 a night, plus $1100 ER fee (just to check in) and a $4000 blood work, and $5,000 admittance fee.

          This is INSANITY! As a result people will REFUSE TO SEEK TREATMENT short of innement death to save money.

          Face it Americ

        • by waspleg ( 316038 )

          I've been to the ER a few times. Literally the first thing they do when you finally get to a room is send in a lady with a clip board to ask for your insurance information - BEFORE they do ANYTHING.

        • who died [nypost.com] because he went to an urgent care and they refused to treat him. Not everybody lives near a hospital.

          Hospital ERs don't work for a lot of reasons.

          First, they will sue you for the money you owe. As little as $300 these days. Your wages will be garnished. In parts of the South if you are unemployed and can't pay a judge will find you in contempt of court and throw you in jail until your relatives pay. In the meantime you will be pressed into prison labor for 10-70 cents/hr. A lot of fruit is
    • Italys infections are decreasing, but their hospitalization rate continues to increase. It takes 4-6 weeks to recover from a serious case, but only 4-6 days to come down with a new one. Hospitalizations will still increase for week in the best case.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not really. Italy and Spain still see increases. The US will probably see increases for at least several months and only then a slow decrease.

    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      That's the first wave. Many epidemics of this kind come in multiple waves until vaccine is developed or herd immunity is achieved via natural means. Essentially bad part hits, everyone hides in their homes and sits out the incubation period, epidemic eases, people go out and new infection wave starts.

      Considering the level of threat involved, it makes sense to prepare for the second wave.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The lock down is necessary to give time to effectively "process" the critically ill portion of covid through intensive care and ventilation and allow time for more effective treatments and treatment capacity to come on line.

      The issue in Italy and initially China was the cases far exceeded the health care system capacity to put critically ill on ventilators, therefore many hard choices were made and many people had to be allowed to die. This partly explains the very high elderly representation in the death s

    • In some states and communities, but not for others.

      Each US State is the equivalent of every EU Country. While each State is United under a federal government, they actually have a lot of autonomy on how they do things. As well they have different economic drivers, and more or fewer cities and sizes. New York City is getting hit now, however, in the next few weeks, we could be having problems in Dallas Texas.

    • by freax ( 80371 )

      Well, if they say that in a 100 days they will have built x units, then that doesn't mean that at 100 days from now, on the exact date, they'll put a few containers in front if you with x units.

      It can also be the case that per day they will create ( x units / 100 days ) and after 100 days they will have created ( x units / 100 days ) times 100 days units, or, x.

      I know this sounds like a very strange concept to some people. But it's totally plausible that it actually works that way. Think about it. You'll fi

    • Italy is having their new cases coming down, after (surprise, surprise!) about 3 weeks of lockdown since 9th March. The same with Spain.

      They've both gone back up again today.

    • by tflf ( 4410717 )

      In another 2 months, by end of May, either most of the US population would be infected (then 12,000 would be too few to make a difference), or by end-April the lockdown measures would be having its effect and new cases would be slowing down.

      Not every pandemic is a once and done. Even without self-isolation and social distancing, only 40% of the population infected this round is possible, assuming the virus dies out in warmer weather (far from a certainty yet). Yet waves of infection rates as low as 35 percent of the entire population in an area likely collapses the local health care system, as hospitals are overwhelmed with patient load, while large numbers of medical staff get infected and are no longer available for weeks. Even if your ar

    • Good luck. Social distancing is not working, just look at the people playing together in parks or the best example the amounts of crowds that jammed together to get a look at the hospital ship coming into NYC harbor.
  • That is, unless the US wants to extends its global leadership role ( Yeah! US is global number 1! MAGA! ) in infection cases unmitigated, then saturation should happen around the time these devices are finished. Of course, most people with severe cases will just die in this case.

  • by hajma ( 824402 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @08:25AM (#59892224)
    The Czech technical university collaborating with private companies, amateurs, and even the government have produced an open source ventilator that would cost less than 5000 USD to make. A crowdsourcing campaign to jumpstart the production with 100 units has finished in less than a day. The design will be approved by the local health authorities and will meet EU requirements. The guys planned to build 500 units (the government would pay the 400 on top of the initial 100), but they've changed their mind and say they can build 50000 for anyone. Production starts tomorrow. https://www.corovent.com/ [corovent.com]
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @08:54AM (#59892346)
    There was a ventilator shortage since Bush Jr. There was an attempt to fix that by creating a national stock pile during the Obama years. A company was selected to provide them for $3k each. Another company who sells them for $10k each didn't like that. They bought the other company out and shelved the project [threadreaderapp.com]
    • Sounds like treason, and now sounds like murder. Where are the lawyers?
      • treason has a very specific definition, which pedantics love to point out. And it was all perfectly legal, so the lawyers can't do anything.

        At this point the only thing to do is change how you vote. Look for and demand politicians who refuse corporate PAC money. That is the defining issue of our time. The only way to get money out of politics is to refuse to vote for anyone who's bought and paid for.

        And vote in your primary, if you don't then you'll be left with the old "Turd Sandwich" vs "Giant Dou
      • by Boronx ( 228853 )

        Very legal and very cool, if you like money.

    • We could have had a general purpose Corona Virus vaccine. Search YouTube for "Now this News" and you'll find a video from a couple weeks back of a doctor giving testimony to Congress about how work was done on it and shelved. I think the Daily Show with Trevor Noah also covered it today.

      It was shelved because it wasn't deemed profitable enough (hindsight's a bitch) and there wasn't any gov't funding (decades of cuts).
    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      Companies should not be allowed to buy out other companies.

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...