Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Faceshield

support.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#191

Post by adventured »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #57
H8crilA wrote: post #44

Can someone explain to me why is Apple making this type of stuff?

1) Because they _can_. They have the manufacturing connections to quickly connect the needed pieces 2) Because they have the spare cash to spin this up very quickly. 3) Because they want to help (or at a minimum, look like they're helping). Are there any reasons why they _shouldn't_ be making this kind of stuff? Other companies also meet all 3 of those conditions, and I think we should be glad (note: I'm saying 'glad…

> or at a minimum, look like they're helping

They're going to make a million face shields this week, and one million per week thereafter, with the intention to produce them above US demand levels to help other nations. I'd say it qualifies as a lot more than looking like they're helping.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#192

Post by simonh »

cameldrv wrote: post #169
docbrown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping everyone in the US might be able to buy one. This burst of PPE being produced in mass quantities are and were never meant to go in the hands of the general public (i.e., non healthcare workers), though. The general public does not need to be walking around with a full face shield, that’ll be a waste of materials, time and money, unfortunately.

Over 1000 people in America are dying every day of this disease. This thing costs probably $2 and likely provides significant protection. About 100 people in America die per day from motor vehicle accidents. Next I suppose you're going to tell me that the extra $50 it costs to install a seatbelt in my car is a waste of materials, time, and money too, right?

Face shields are to protect against body fluid splatter during invasive bodily procedures and while closely treating patients with explosive coughing fits. Even doctors in hospitals treating Covid-19 patients don't wear them outside those types of circumstances. There is no need for the general public to wear them. It's not like fitting your car with a seat belt, it's like fitting it with an ejector seat.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#193

Post by bilbo0s »

mrgrieves wrote: post #149

This design is open-top. That allows sneezed droplets to fall in pretty easily. Whether or not that's a problem will vary by hospital, but some of them simply tape up the gap. Aside from that, it's pretty nice.

I don't know if you are aware, but in the healthcare world there is an expected difference between, for instance, a surgical mask used in operating rooms, and face shields used in facilities for procedures like intubation.

This is intended to be a face shield. I'm sure Apple could make surgical masks? But that's not the most acute supply need at the moment.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#195

Post by leipert »

The Czech 3D Printer company Prusa has been on it for a while: https://www.prusa3d.com/covid19/ and they have been open-sourcing the design. You can print it on a 3D printer.

Based on that design (and others) makers in Germany have started organizing, so that people can either request shields or supply shields. Organized on Slack and into local distribution hubs. We hace started sharing supplies and even got discounts from filament vendors: https://www.makervsvirus.org/en/

Edit: Just wanted to share something related and not downplay Apple with this comment. Would love if they'd opensource their designs ;)

Re: Apple Faceshield

#196

Post by cameldrv »

mike_d wrote: post #187
cameldrv wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 1000 people in America are dying every day of this disease. This thing costs probably $2 and likely provides significant protection. About 100 people in America die per day from motor vehicle accidents. Next I suppose you're going to tell me that the extra $50 it costs to install a seatbelt in my car is a waste of materials, time, and money too, right?

These face shields are intended as an alternative to eye protection that is in short supply. They do nothing for respiratory protection. Infection via the eyes is primarily a concern for people interacting closely with contagious patients (i.e. healthcare workers). To answer your seemingly underlying question: no, if Apple gave you a face shield it doesn't mean you get to go outside.

If no one is going outside, how are there any new cases? Lots of people are "essential workers", they go to the grocery store, the pharmacy, etc.

Yes, HCW exposure is much greater than the average person, but your argument is essentially: Since you aren't driving in a Formula 1 race where the risk of crashing is higher, there's no need to wear a seatbelt.

When we're seeing hundreds of deaths per year from COVID, I'll agree with you, but currently, HCW or no, COVID is one of the biggest threats to your life, and you'd be an idiot to go outside without the best protection you can get your hands on.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#197

Post by Tagbert »

DanBC wrote: post #101
djrogers wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touching one's mask is infinitely better than the alternative of touching one's face, and in the case of a non-symptomatic individual wearing a mask to reduce outbound infectious particles has no bearing at all. The whole 'masks are too hard to use' thing was a horror perpetrated by gov't officials afraid of private individuals hoarding masks.

> Touching one's mask is infinitely better than the alternative of touching one's face, No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated and now your fingers are contaminated. > and in the case of a non-symptomatic individual wearing a mask to reduce outbound infectious particles has no bearing at all. No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated because those masks are not impermeable and the virus does pe…

When I am out and about, I assume that my fingers are contaminated. When I get to my car, I always do a cleanup down with an alchohol wipe and when I get home, do the ABC wash of my hands and face.

Still, wearing the mask is a constant reminder not to touch my face. some people will still ignore that reminder but not everyone is going to follow the rules 100%.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#198

Post by fspeech »

docbrown wrote: post #35
woofie11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping everyone in the US might be able to buy one. Ideally, they'd be cheap enough for municipalities to buy and distribute.

> I was hoping everyone in the US might be able to buy one. This burst of PPE being produced in mass quantities are and were never meant to go in the hands of the general public (i.e., non healthcare workers), though. The general public does not need to be walking around with a full face shield, that’ll be a waste of materials, time and money, unfortunately.

Face shields are more effective than masks at preventing exchange of droplets.(1) They can be cleaned and reused so it may save money and material for the general public to popularize face shields.

1. "There may be some protection from droplets and liquids propelled directly onto the mask, but a faceshield would be a better choice if this is a concern." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...

Re: Apple Faceshield

#199

Post by kevinmgranger »

cameldrv wrote: post #169
docbrown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping everyone in the US might be able to buy one. This burst of PPE being produced in mass quantities are and were never meant to go in the hands of the general public (i.e., non healthcare workers), though. The general public does not need to be walking around with a full face shield, that’ll be a waste of materials, time and money, unfortunately.

Over 1000 people in America are dying every day of this disease. This thing costs probably $2 and likely provides significant protection. About 100 people in America die per day from motor vehicle accidents. Next I suppose you're going to tell me that the extra $50 it costs to install a seatbelt in my car is a waste of materials, time, and money too, right?

If time was of the essence for car production and we needed to decide if ambulances or regular cars get seatbelts first, then yes, we'd give them to ambulances.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#200

Post by DanBC »

SamBam wrote: post #148
DanBC wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Touching one's mask is infinitely better than the alternative of touching one's face, No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated and now your fingers are contaminated. > and in the case of a non-symptomatic individual wearing a mask to reduce outbound infectious particles has no bearing at all. No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated because those masks are not impermeable and the virus does pe…

> No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated and now your fingers are contaminated. My understanding is that that's a misunderstanding (one that I was under as well). For people who aren't sick, the worry is that your hands get contaminated (much more common, from surface contact), and then you touch your mask and transfer to the mask, and eventually it works its way in since these aren't N95s. i.e. it ends…

Yes, you're right. That first point was about the DIY cotton masks, not fluid resistant surgical masks.
Post reply on HN