Apple Faceshield • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Faceshield

#631

Post by ksk » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

dlubarov wrote: post #520

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 no microbiology expert, so obviously take this with a grain of salt :-).] I'm not sure whether the initial dose affects the severity of the disease, but it seems clear that it at least affects the probability of infection. The individual action hypothesis [1] posits that each individual pathogen has an independent chance of infecting a host, i.e. P(no infection | n pathogens) = P(no infection | single pathogen)^…

Well there's two things. There is the 'minimum viable dose' which you can estimate for various diseases, that will most likely result in an infection. And then there is the dose size (above that minimum).

With an exponential curve, whether you start off with 10,000 or 100,000, given that it takes about 2 weeks for our adaptive immunity to kick in, the virus is going to be in the hundreds of millions in either case.

[I work in vaccines, but not as a scientist, so I'm just trying to absorb as much as possible here..]

Re: Apple Faceshield

#632

Post by woofie11 » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #357

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 That depends entirely on if there is a viral build up on the outside of the mask. Discouraging people from using N95 masks was specifically to avoid the private hoarding of masks. But discouraging use of other masks (and N95) by the public is because they do not protect you if they are used wrong. When any air passed around a mask,…

This is all false. Try to find a scientific citation. I dare you.

N95 masks, incorrectly fitted, are at least as effective as surgical (in studies, they came out ahead, but not by a statistically-significant amount).

In conjunction with handwashing, surgical and N95 masks make a huge difference.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#633

Post by Polylactic_acid » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 11:17 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #513

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has the benefit of preventing you from touching your face after touching things customers have touched.

If you're a retail worker and you haven't trained yourself to not touch your face while in work mode, I don't know what to tell you. Be better?

Or to wear protective gear that costs basically nothing. Not touching your face at all is extremely difficult where as wearing a mask is very simple. Why suggest very difficult measures when very simple ones work better.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#634

Post by dlubarov » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

ksk wrote: post #631

dlubarov wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[I'm no microbiology expert, so obviously take this with a grain of salt :-).] I'm not sure whether the initial dose affects the severity of the disease, but it seems clear that it at least affects the probability of infection. The individual action hypothesis [1] posits that each individual pathogen has an independent chance of infecting a host, i.e. P(no infection | n pathogens) = P(no infection | single pathogen)^…

Well there's two things. There is the 'minimum viable dose' which you can estimate for various diseases, that will most likely result in an infection. And then there is the dose size (above that minimum). With an exponential curve, whether you start off with 10,000 or 100,000, given that it takes about 2 weeks for our adaptive immunity to kick in, the virus is going to be in the hundreds of millions in either case. […

Yeah that's fair -- there might be some high-exposure situations (like being coughed on) where infection is very likely with or without a face shield.

I suspect that a lot of airbone infections are from inhaling small doses here and there though, considering how long mucus droplets can stay suspended [1] --

> Particles of diameters 1-3 μm remained suspended almost indefinitely, 10 μm took 17 min, 20 μm took 4 min, and 100 μm took 10 s to fall to the floor.

[1] https://www.mintie.com/assets/img/education/Aerosol%20transm...

Re: Apple Faceshield

#635

Post by ChristianBundy » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

brodie wrote: post #559

ChristianBundy wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pre-assembled version of this, it's called "a plastic bag", and most people know not to stick their head in one. Please don't encourage dangerous behavior.

Covering your eyes with a clear film is dangerous? Do you regularly suffocate on your glasses or shades?

> You keeps the bottom part loose, so it doesn't restrict breathing.

Obviously you weren't advocating for a face mask that only covered the eyes.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#636

Post by bamboozled » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

pmilot wrote: post #583

bamboozled wrote: post #580

Likely not going to be a popular comment but what about the environmental impact of stuff like this? Are they reusable ?

From the article: > You can sterilize and reuse your face shield. It has been evaluated to be compatible with the following chemicals [...]

I'm talking a bit more longer term, like once this is over, what will happen with millions and millions of these items?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#637

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 3:52 AM UTC

asdfadsfgfdda wrote: post #432

sudosysgen wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of parts can actually be mass produced. You could probably make 3500 face shields in less than a week with 10 printers. The mass produced Prusa i3 printers actually use quite a few 3D printed parts, and they made over a hundred thousand.

There's just no comparing 3d printing with the correct manufacturing equipment. This machine can probably produce hundreds of face shields per minute (wait until the end of the video for full speed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuMSp-vxo7U

Sure, but setting up or changing an assembly line takes weeks, during which the 3D printer would have printed a few thousand masks.

Both technologies have their uses, and this is a demonstration of the usefulness of 3D printing.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#638

Post by Yhippa » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #201

It’s interesting that this doesn’t include a top cover to prevent particulates from coming down from above the shield. We are working with several major hospital groups and that is something they have asked for specifically. Actually they have requested we make modifications to the various open source designs to accommodate that. The hospitals we are working with wouldn’t accept this design. This is also why the NIH…

Thank you for sharing. I have many friends and family who work in the medical field. I will see if I can get these printed for them.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#639

Post by lenkite » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 9:18 AM UTC

I wish someone would explain why we does it have a top and bottom gap - isn't that a severe vulnerability ?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#640

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 10:32 AM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #621

marcus_holmes wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I notice that it's "the media are telling them that Asians are being targeted", not "Asians are buying guns because they're suffering from racist attacks". Again, the belief that people will do bad things to each other when order breaks down is much more prevalent than the actual incidence of people doing bad things to each other when order breaks down.

I'm not saying it can't happen - there are always racist assholes out there. But the media will tell one story of a racist asshole harassing an Asian family rather than 100 stories of people being genuinely nice to each other in a crisis. Because we'll click on that one bad story and ignore the 100 nice ones.