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

621–630 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#621

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #618
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " What situation that could conceivably arise from a pandemic requires an automatic rifle? " Good thing that automatic rifles aren't available for sale to the civilian market[1] then, I suppose. [1] Yes, the pedants will point out that it's theoretically possible with special licensing but it's very uncommon.

Apologies for not understanding the differences between various types of gun and misusing the term. Still, the point remains - what situation could possibly arise from a pandemic that would require a ?

How about this? https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-gun-sales-asian-califor.... Asians don't exactly fit the traditional stereotypes for firearms purchasers but the attacks described and similar bad behavior directed at international students from Asia on college campuses certainly show that there are people out there willing to attack them based on imagined threats and therefore some level of concern by Asians for their personal safety is merited.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#622

Post by ehsankia »

zimpenfish wrote: post #529
ehsankia wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, I've been seeing a lot of calls for 3D printing similar looking Face shields , which are very different from face masks. What is the use for this? Are they actually useful to health care professionals? Face mask + goggles fully covers the 3 places the virus can enter (mouth, nose and eyes), but these shields seem like they would be more useful for people who have the virus than those who don't.

> Face mask + goggles fully covers the 3 places the virus can enter (mouth, nose and eyes) I believe face masks are only 95% effective at best and that's only with a proper N95 which a lot of medical staff appear not to be able to get hold of. Hence they're wearing things like Buffs or cycling masks to make do. In that situation, having another layer that can stop droplets etc. from reaching the mask in the first pla…

I see, so are they wearing these shields on top of the usual mask?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#623

Post by woah »

mdorazio wrote: post #486
woah wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By headband I mean the part that you are 3d printing. Both designs still need an elastic strap.

I'm not actually sure what you're saying, then. Why is the 3d printed version odd if the transparent part is easily sourced without needing a die cutter?

The part that is being 3d printed in these designs is easily sourced without a 3d printer. Look at Apple's design. It uses a piece of the same transparent plastic in place of the 3d printed part.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#625

Post by ricardobeat »

lonelappde wrote: post #383
ricardobeat wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe someone like the CDC? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/d...

You seem confused. This is a complicated topic. That CDC says sterilizing masks is not a safe practice, but in a crisis it's better than having no mask.

> When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so

There's the data and very clear recommendations by the CDC on when and how to do it. Whats' the confusing part? I don't think anyone is suggesting this approach during non-crisis times.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#626

Post by woofie11 »

mbreese wrote: post #323
roenxi wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> What a tool was being used for 2 months ago isn't relevant It is very relevant. These face shields wouldn't protect anyone from airborne/aerosol pathogens or viruses. They have a very specific purpose and that isn't one of them. If you're talking about adapting construction grade shields (like used for painting, etc) for medical use -- sure. But you aren't going to use a face shield as a replacement for a face mask…

What if I want to protect myself and my facemask from large droplets. I also want to protect myself from accidentally touching my face. Is a face shield okay then?

And if so, why not drop $300 million to get one for everyone in the US? They're cheap, wash easily, and that's less than 0.02% of the last stimulus.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#627

Post by ksk »

zo1 wrote: post #531
ksk wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but it's still preferable to receive a smaller dose of the virus. Could you explain why you believe that? I haven't found anything definitive on this topic.

I'm really not a medical expert at all. But, just thinking about it one could at least speculate or argue: A smaller payload means the virus takes a longer time to "become very active" in the body and delaying this "ramp up" period may give your body's immune response a longer lead time from when it first "sees" the virus to when it becomes dangerous to you.

Well with an exponential curve, even if the amount of the initial dose changes 10 fold, from 20,000 to 200,000 virons you will get to hundreds of millions in pretty much the same time. I believe adaptive immunity takes about a week or two to kick in, and in that time the virus is going to keep multiplying like crazy, regardless of the dose.

Also, suppose you were living with a partner and both of you got infected. Both of you will continually shed and "re-infect" the other, so would we expect that the infection will necessarily be severe?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#628

Post by woofie11 »

brirec wrote: post #430
roenxi wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It increases the effective time large droplets need to spend in the air to get to me, and decreases the airflow around me. It's about the same reason plexiglass screens help, and keeping a 6-foot distance helps.

Plus, it stops me from touching my face.

No, it doesn't stop everything, but it's a buck.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#629

Post by woofie11 »

rumanator wrote: post #424
roenxi wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's the general guidance in countries getting overrun by COVID-19. In countries which have stopped it, everyone wears facemasks. Chinese scientists have good data that surgical masks help in both directions.

Face shields reduce flow of air around you. Think of the six foot rule, but add a few more feet. They also reduce projectile sneezes (and "say-it-don't-spray-it" talking, coughs, and even breathing) by quite a bit. Think about sneezing in your elbow, only much better.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#630

Post by woofie11 »

megablast wrote: post #351
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 is incredible how selfish people are. The frontline workers are desperate for any kind of PPE, but we still have random people, who are mostly staying at home, that want to get in the front of the line.

Staying at home and limiting spread is the most effective way to help professionals.

PPE helps limit spread. The trick is to buy stuff which doesn't take away from doctors. Cotton masks. Face shields. Etc.

In contrast to nonwoven fabric, a toy factory can produce a billion face shields if you want it to. You can but them online for a buck (in quantities of 10). It ain't taking away from anyone.

Post reply on HN