Apple Faceshield • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Faceshield

#281

Post by joenot443 » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #136

Pet peeve, that may not just be me idly nitpicking, since this is presumably going to be used in a health care or healthcare-adjacent context where clear communication matters: Sterilization and disinfection are NOT the same thing. The products they suggest using for "sterilization" are disinfecting agents. They will kill most, but not all, microbes. Sterilization implies that you've eliminated everything, and requir…

It sounds as if you're right. As someone who wasn't familiar with the difference between those two processes, when I read:

"You can sterilize and reuse your face shield. It has been evaluated to be compatible with the following chemicals:"

I interpreted that to mean that those chemicals could be used to sterilize the mask, which you've now explained to be incorrect. A nitpick, but a valid one all the same!

Re: Apple Faceshield

#282

Post by gwright » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #233

prostheticvamp wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because best data to date is that sterilization procedures damage the mask in ways that render it unsafe. When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so, the masks won’t go in the trash. In the meantime, I’d you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that will get you sick.

Says something about our society, though, that doctors at Stanford can use a mask per chat "just in case", while just across the bay at Oakland Kaiser nurses are working with multiple confirmed coronavirus patients on a single mask...

What does it say?

It seems to me that pretty much every society has struggled to deal with this. Perhaps because it isn't something that has many reasonable direct analogues in our collective experience?

It is very easy to spot deficiencies after the fact. Much harder to spot them before.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#283

Post by manfredo » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

gambler wrote: post #256

leipert wrote: post #195

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 discount…

What is the point of 3d printing something that clearly needs to be mass-produced in great quantities? Maybe it "feels good", but it's just too slow. I'm honestly not sure why people don't just use plastic food wrap as a cheap improvised alternative for face shields. It's lightweight, readily available, disposable, fits over any attire and does not restrict visibility.

3d printing is probably less effective than manufacturing at scale, but it has much lower setup time and overhead cost. Not to mention, this escalated demand for masks and face shields is going to be very short - 1 or 2 years at most. Setting up a whole factory to fulfill only a year or two of demand is not effective. By comparison, you can use your 3d printer for other stuff after the pandemic is over.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#284

Post by kbaker » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #193

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.

No, they are talking about a top cover like in the NIH-approved design:

https://3dprint.nih.gov/discover/3dpx-013359

Re: Apple Faceshield

#285

Post by sailfast » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

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.

At some point, I want to leave my house. Like, maybe in June?

A face shield sounds like a prudent way to reduce one’s risk while also being able to interact with others. Why not let citizens buy them after shortages end?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#286

Post by munificent » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #58

I can hear Jony Ive describing it as "fashioned from a single continuous pane of clear polymer" in my ears right now...

The new Apple Magic Face.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#287

Post by sailfast » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #247

fspeech wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Right, but staying home is even more effective at preventing exchange of droplets. The face shields should be going to people who can't stay home and are forced to be around contagious people.

I’d like to leave my house in a month or two. You?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#288

Post by mulmen » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #240

scarface74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

GM, Ford, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, 3M, Eli Lilly, Cummins, ... I could keep going. Maybe not all have it to the same degree as Apple, but are sufficient to make a face shield. Lot's of companies could do this. I'm glad Apple is giving it a go.

GM and Ford also support massive networks of suppliers and contractors that have this capability as well. The list of capable companies is enormous.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#289

Post by mcginleyr1 » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #240

scarface74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

GM, Ford, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, 3M, Eli Lilly, Cummins, ... I could keep going. Maybe not all have it to the same degree as Apple, but are sufficient to make a face shield. Lot's of companies could do this. I'm glad Apple is giving it a go.

We (Nike) are https://news.nike.com/news/nike-ppe-face-shields-covid-19-su...

Re: Apple Faceshield

#290

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

pwthornton wrote: post #24

joncrane wrote: post #18

It would be great if they could make face shields that are dishwasher safe.

Is there any plastic that is actually dishwasher safe? I thought just about all of it started leaching when exposed to high temperatures.

Is Melmac considered plastic? I have Melmac plates.