[kibwen]

I think it might be the opposite, actually. In a disaster, when you need a sudden surge of supply, you're not going to have time to scale up your production. Even if we had reliable supplies of synthetic blood, I think disasters are always going to call for mass donations from the old-fashioned blood producers.

[Forgeties79]

> I think disasters are always going to call for mass donations from the old-fashioned blood producers.

Maybe I’m parroting an incorrect bar top factoid, but isn’t it usually the case that they need the blood before the disaster? That when events like 9/11 occur and people rush to donate blood, it’s not actually going to do much for the immediate problem?

[ebiester]

Yes and no. It won't do much for the immediate problem, but you're about to go through a lot more blood and will need to replenish the stores.

[tyre]

With 9/11 specifically it didn’t do much for the immediate problem because there wasn’t much need for blood. People crushed under the weight of the towers weren’t bleeding out, they were just dead.