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

211–220 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#211

Post by mys_721tx »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #98
mys_721tx wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bleach breaks down to chlorine, which in turn reacts with ammonia to form chloramine. Mustard gas has sulfur and cannot be synthesized this way.

Chlorine based bleach is just one of the things that has the label "Bleach" in your household cleaning aisle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach#Classes_of_bleaches

The only sulfur containing bleaches in that list are potassium persulfate and sodium hydrosulfite. Neither contains chlorine.

Furthermore, the synthesis of mustard gas is non-trivial. Those two chemicals are not enough to put the sulfur on a carbon chain.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#212

Post by cameldrv »

kevinmgranger wrote: post #199
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?

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.

I'm not suggesting that priority should not be given to HCWs or other high risk people like grocery store employees, but at $2 each, this is something everyone should be wearing as soon as we have enough of 'em.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#213

Post by adventured »

scarface74 wrote: post #107
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What other American company has the logistic and design know how that Apple has to make hundreds of millions devices?

The US is an extremely massive manufacturing nation. There are dozens of companies in the US that could mass produce these face shields. It's great that Apple moved quickly to do it, it's certainly in their wheelhouse to make happen.

These shields are easy to manufacture. They're ideal to rapidly produce, cheaply and at scale. Compared to normal shields in the industry they're no-frills, which is perfectly fine, as right now we just need volume.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#214

Post by snazz »

kube-system wrote: post #180
Symbiote wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it very clearly printed on the bottle in your country? Here (I assume this is an EU regulation) it says "WARNING! Do not use together with other products. May release dangerous gases (chlorine)."

Here's a couple of typical labels in the US: https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2025dfde-c877-4043-b91d-978... https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/05122787-1991-4084-869e-755...

The "DO NOT use or mix with other household chemicals, such as..." part should probably go on the front and a little bigger. I can't imagine that everyone would read the whole thing.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#215

Post by fragmede »

pvg wrote: post #155
rabuse wrote: post #135

Off-topic, but on the subject of Apple. FaceID is a nightmare to work with, while wearing a mask. The numeric input delay, after trying to open your phone for the 100th time, gets old.

Turn the autolock off when you go outside, keep the phone unlocked. You can turn it back on when you're done, it's a single prefs switch. And change your lock screen image to 'REMAIN INDOORS'.

Toggling that off requires disabling Apple Pay, and turning it back on requires re-adding cards to Apple Pay in order to use them.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#216

Post by cameldrv »

simonh wrote: post #192
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?

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.

So your argument is that the risk to the average American is low from COVID? Why do we have 300,000 cases then? Why are 1000 people dying a day? That's already 0.1% of the population, and most of them in the past week!

Re: Apple Faceshield

#218

Post by rchaud »

xmmrm wrote: post #59
762236 wrote: post #15

Where they describe how to sterilize it: DO NOT mix those chemicals together (e.g., bleach + rubbing alcohol = chloroform).

Yeah, they should drop bleach from that list. It degrades the shield and it might just do more harm than good.

The markup of the page has the following:

So the page was made available for the intended customers only, healthcare workers who likely know how to properly use bleach to clean it. This page won't be indexed by search engines.

Ironically, because it was posted on HN, it will appear, but as a link inside of an HN story.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#219

Post by epicureanideal »

uxp wrote: post #153
epicureanideal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that they probably would cost $1 to $5, and take almost no space to store, it wouldn't be a terrible thing for people to have a few if they want them. How many people have a $20 multi-tool that stays in a drawer somewhere? Or some bags of rice "just in case" that end up getting thrown in the trash after being forgotten about in the cabinet for 5 years? It may not be a terrible thing if some percentage of people…

It's not about the money. PPE like face shields are specifically used during procedures that involve significant bodily fluid, like intubation, which is the process of pulling or pushing a tube down a patient's esophagus. Going to to the grocery store does not require a shield. Secondly disposable medical equipment, when used properly within a healthcare environment, is extremely wasteful. For most consumable items u…

"Everybody stocking a "handful" of PPE isn't a scalable solution to maintain a national supply."

No, but there's no harm in it either, and some potential benefit in case it takes a few days for the federal government to organize a response.

We all assume the government is going to make sure the food supply is maintained, but everyone is also buying some extra food just in case there's a temporary gap.

We don't need to choose just one way of preparing for the unknown.

Also, I was just saying the general public might purchase a few of these masks for themselves for their own use, not that hospitals might rely on the public for supplies.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#220

Post by ericzawo »

I would love, love, love to read the internal debate Apple's marketing team had around calling it "the Faceshield" as opposed to invoking first person "Faceshield" much like how they always refer to it as "iPhone" not "an iPhone."
Post reply on HN