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

271–280 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#271

Post by vkou »

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.

> Right, but staying home is even more effective at preventing exchange of droplets.

There are tens of millions of Americans who are currently working, who cannot stay home, and are not medical professionals.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#273

Post by aledalgrande »

fspeech wrote: post #198
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.

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...

Masks are more effective at preventing spread from untested, asymptomatic infected people though.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#274

Post by gwright »

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…

There is a shortage right now and we are collectively trying to address that but it is strange to say that this particular product and the safety practices you describe is the "reason why we pay federal taxes".

Your more general point that having a national stockpile of for disasters of various kinds is of course valid, but that is true irrespective of the particular nature of the normal use of those particular items.

And we've learned that the federal government isn't particularly good at stockpiling. I hope we can find a way to have some non-partisan after-action committees to figure out how to do better for the next disaster.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#275

Post by kojeovo »

jacksnipe wrote: post #254
dx87 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A huge number of Americans cannot stay home and are not healthcare workers. People have bills to pay, and not every non-healthcare business is closed, unfortunately.

Right but that still doesn't seem like a good enough reason for Apple to start selling these publicly.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#276

Post by jjallen »

woofie11 wrote: post #20
gowld wrote: post #6

Context: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/5/21209270/apple-face-shield... “Our first shipment was delivered to Kaiser hospital facilities in the Santa Clara Valley this past week, and the feedback from doctors was very positive,” Cook says. “These pack flat, one hundred per box. Each shield is assembled in less than two minutes and is fully adjustable. We’re sourcing materials and manufacturing in the US and China.” A…

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.

Woofie11 expresses hope that everyone should be able to have a shield, not just health care workers first and people here down vote them?

What's so wrong with that? Do you not believe that yes, everyone should be able to have protective equipment not just health care workers? In what kind of a country do we live where we have to ration health care supplies (a basic one at that -- it's literally clear plastic) to only those working directly in health care? It's merely a hope woofie11 expressed, and I too have the same hope: that yes, our system is good enough to protect everyone and rationing shouldn't be needed.

Woofie11 said nothing about not giving supplies to those that most need it first and nor have I.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#277

Post by zaroth »

jacksnipe wrote: post #254
dx87 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A huge number of Americans cannot stay home and are not healthcare workers. People have bills to pay, and not every non-healthcare business is closed, unfortunately.

Why unfortunately? I'd say it's quite fortunate that grocery stores and gas stations are still operational.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#278

Post by GordonS »

gruez wrote: post #108
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 ...assuming the act of wearing the mask isn't the reason for touching the face in the first place (eg. adjusting the mask)

I commented on exactly this on HN a few days ago - when I venture out these days, I notice some people wearing masks, and just in the short time I see them, pretty much every one has adjusted/fiddled with their mask.

The masks I've seen are of varying types, but I guess most are of the 3M DIY/building variety (that is, masks designed to be worn while doing building work).

Re: Apple Faceshield

#279

Post by gambler »

vorpalhex wrote: post #269
gambler wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Having 100 visors is ideal, but I'll still take 1 visor over none. 2. It's really hard to breathe through food wrap and it doesn't cling to hair well.

>It's really hard to breathe through food wrap and it doesn't cling to hair well.

You wrap it around the top of your head (forehead level), so it sticks to itself. You keeps the bottom part loose, so it doesn't restrict breathing. It works.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#280

Post by cameldrv »

alexbanks wrote: post #253
cameldrv wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the argument is that civilians shouldn't wear N95 masks outside, but rather donate them to people who need them even more, fine. However, if the argument is that you shouldn't wear a $1 mask, which provides substantial protection against COVID, because it's not necessary, I would refer you again to the 1000 people that died yesterday that didn't wear an N95 mask. The amount of mental gymnastics you have to do to h…

If your assertion is "They wouldn't have died if they'd worn an N95 mask", I would refer you to basically any literature about what the point of wearing the masks are. Your overwhelming condescension also make this conversation much harder than it needs to be. I would consider taking a walk and trying to relax.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/

Table 6.

Wearing an N95 mask reduces your chance of contracting SARS by 91%.

I apologize if my frustration comes through here, but the data is very clear and people are dying in the thousands because they're not protecting themselves.

Post reply on HN