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

421–430 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#421

Post by staticautomatic »

electricviolet wrote: post #257
epicureanideal wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

The harm right now is that there's not even enough PPE for hospitals, so anyone buying a face shield for themselves, if that were possible, would keep a face shields from going to a health worker who needs it more. A couple months from now, when pressure on the healthcare system is lower and manufacturing capacity is ramped up? Sure, I'm all for it.

Based on a number of reports I've read about the N95 market, there seems to be plenty of PPE available domestically, but it's all being sold to foreign buyers because the government refuses to institute export controls.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#422

Post by staticautomatic »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #300
uxp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what, though? And I'm 100% being honest here, what is the specific situation you are envisioning that requires a face shield in your home? In a medical setting, shields are typically used in conjunction with eye goggles and respirators when performing procedures that have a tendency to cause or be around splashing body fluids. Outside of someone sneezing or spitting on you directly, I can't think of an analogous…

It's the same mentality as people buying guns. What situation that could conceivably arise from a pandemic requires an automatic rifle? It's a generalised sense of "bad things are happening, I need to be prepared for bad things to happen to me".

I don't think that's why people prep and buy guns.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#423

Post by Talanes »

roenxi wrote: post #396
chrischen wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go light a cigarette or incense and and see if a face shield prevents you from inhaling any smoke.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm imagining. If someone tried to smoke behind a facemask it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught behind the mask then drift out behind them like a comet trail, or move up/down. Only small wisps would end up traveling forward to where I'd be standing for conversation. The doses of virus would be diluted very rapidly which is helpful. Ideal scenario would be most of…

>If someone tried to smoke behind a facemask it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught behind the mask then drift out behind them like a comet trail, or move up/down. Only small wisps would end up traveling forward to where I'd be standing for conversation.

You ARE the person in the faceshield (I assume you meant that instead of facemask), you don't control what other people do so assume they uncovered. The smoke is in the air, it can reach you. Will it get around that shield or not?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#424

Post by rumanator »

roenxi wrote: post #299
uxp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's not about the money. PPE like face shields are specifically used during procedures that involve... There is currently a global pandemic afoot that is spread by droplets expelled from people's mouth and nose. What a tool was being used for 2 months ago isn't relevant; the situation is different now. > Everybody stocking a "handful" of PPE isn't a scalable solution to maintain a national supply. If masks or face…

> There is currently a global pandemic afoot that is spread by droplets expelled from people's mouth and nose.

Do you have any source on how face shields are an effective tool against atomized covid19 viruses? The general guidance is that facial masks are effective at barring infected people from emitting contaminated particles, but not good at stopping healthy people from having contact with the virus. Therefore why would an open face shield, which filters zero, be a better solution?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#425

Post by rumanator »

roenxi wrote: post #396
chrischen wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go light a cigarette or incense and and see if a face shield prevents you from inhaling any smoke.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm imagining. If someone tried to smoke behind a facemask it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught behind the mask then drift out behind them like a comet trail, or move up/down. Only small wisps would end up traveling forward to where I'd be standing for conversation. The doses of virus would be diluted very rapidly which is helpful. Ideal scenario would be most of…

> it seems pretty likely that most of the smoke will be caught

If your plan is to only block most of the virus then perhaps you should rethink it.

It's like stating that a hole in the hull is not a problem because the rest of the ship keeps most of the water out.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#426

Post by Talanes »

samatman wrote: post #384
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.

The general public includes about a hundred thousand people whose job puts them in touch with everyone: mostly checkout clerks. They are at great risk for infection and for being vectors of infection, and are performing an essential service. These face masks are a great piece of technology for them: effective, reusable, and comfortable enough to wear for a full shift.

It's very simple to just put up a full shield between the clerk and the customers, you don't need to strap the shield to people's faces when there's a static point of contact.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#427

Post by inamberclad »

epicureanideal wrote: post #63
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.

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…

These don't look like 'normal' face shields that you'd find in a woodworking shop. They're just splash guards, won't stop anything remotely solid that's flying.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#428

Post by titzer »

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…

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#429

Post by mbreese »

BalinKing wrote: post #419
mbreese wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems pretty likely that I will be protected And you'd be wrong. Sure, a face shield will protect you from liquid streaming out at you (partially). However, it isn't a liquid that you need to protect yourself from in this instance... it is aerosolized particles. And those travel in the air. So when you breathe in, that air can and will move around the face shield. The sibling comment about smoke moving is exactl…

Isn't the recommendations by many countries to wear even cloth masks (e.g. the recent reversal by the CDC) _because_ there's a good chance COVID-19 can spread via large (i.e. non-aerosolized) respiratory droplets? (Not that it doesn't also spread in other ways, but removing even one vector would be better in this case than not doing so.)

I'm not sure why there is a recommendation to wear cloth masks in other countries (not discounting it, I just haven't looked). However, I believe that the primary rationale for the CDC switching their recommendation that everyone should wear masks has to do with the great numbers of asymptomatic carriers. In this scenario, wearing a mask is not designed to protect the wearer from others. Wearing an ill-fitting mask is not protective to the individual. Instead, wearing a mask is designed to protect others from the wearer. Because people are carriers before they exhibit symptoms (if they ever have symptoms), you can't know if you are infected or not. If you are wearing a mask, you are limiting the potential spread of virus from you. This way, you are keeping any potential virus closer to you so that others are more protected. This goes hand in hand with social distancing. If you use a mask and don't distance yourself, you aren't helping at all. I'm looking for a CDC reference, but this was also the rationale presented in local media reports.

If you're really curious, Ars Technica has a really good writeup of all of the relevant studies.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-fa...

Most of the research above assumed either surgical or N95-style masks. There was one study that looked at use of cloth (non-medical, non N95) masks, and this was the key finding (from Ars, not the paper):

Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles.

Regarding everyone wearing (surgical) masks to protect others:

In a study published April 3, 2020 in Nature Medicine, researchers found that surgical masks reduced the detection of respiratory viruses in aerosols generated by infected people breathing or coughing in a breath-collecting machine.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#430

Post by brirec »

roenxi wrote: post #382
mbreese wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems pretty likely that I will be protected And you'd be wrong. Sure, a face shield will protect you from liquid streaming out at you (partially). However, it isn't a liquid that you need to protect yourself from in this instance... it is aerosolized particles. And those travel in the air. So when you breathe in, that air can and will move around the face shield. The sibling comment about smoke moving is exactl…

You say that with great confidence and a lack of sources; and I'm guessing we are equally ignorant on the actual physics of how small droplets move. The details aren't clear on how the virus is spreading. The virus might have multiple modes of transmission. Closing 2 of them reliably a great deal. There are important things to do with "catching COVID" that aren't binary; starting doses likely matter as well. I'd rath…

> The virus might have multiple modes of transmission. Closing 2 of them reliably a great deal.

Sounds reasonable, but how is a face shield a reliable way to close a mode of transmission if people aren’t spitting liquid in your face?

Post reply on HN