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

391–400 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#391

Post by chrischen »

roenxi wrote: post #362
mbreese wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If someone is facing me and a stream of airborne particles hits a plastic shield instead of streaming out to me, it seems pretty likely that I will be protected. I'm certainly open to the idea that fluid mechanics are complicated and somehow air currents are going to do unhelpful things, but until I find someone with a paper on the topic I'd much rather be talking to someone wearing a face shield than not. Plus obvio…

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

Re: Apple Faceshield

#392

Post by awaythrower »

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.

Your opinion is for you alone, doctor keyboard. Declaring what other people should do is supremely arrogant.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#393

Post by awaythrower »

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…

Strawman and wrong.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#394

Post by awaythrower »

dillonmckay wrote: post #388
mbreese wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nobody is advocating for a face-shield as a replacement for an N-95 mask, but using them together, would reduce the odds of infection. According to the MIT paper, a typical sneeze will travel over 20 feet. Additionally, there is mention of the velocity of the particles may be able to penetrate the mask, so a face-shield could help with that, too.

Yes. Defense-in-depth. In China, most hospital red zones required 3 layers of PPE, whether that's two masks and a face shield or such. One layer alone is not very good, and a face shield alone is no good. A mask and a face shield are very good, especially for confined spaces like subways and busses where there are jerks coughing and sneezing all over without hygiene or manners.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#395

Post by TallGuyShort »

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.

Several US state governments are strongly asking people to wear masks now. My local government asked so strongly they had to clarify that no, they could not prosecute you for not wearing one. And while they generally demonstrate masks that cover the nose and mouth, the earlier guidance was to avoid touching the eyes, as that was believed to be a major vector for droplet absorption.

So... how do you reconcile your statement with that?

Re: Apple Faceshield

#396

Post by roenxi »

chrischen wrote: post #391
roenxi wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is facing me and a stream of airborne particles hits a plastic shield instead of streaming out to me, it seems pretty likely that I will be protected. I'm certainly open to the idea that fluid mechanics are complicated and somehow air currents are going to do unhelpful things, but until I find someone with a paper on the topic I'd much rather be talking to someone wearing a face shield than not. Plus obvio…

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 the smoke gets pushed down in a knee-wards direction, which is well within the realm of the imaginable.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#397

Post by TallGuyShort »

awaythrower wrote: post #392
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.

Your opinion is for you alone, doctor keyboard. Declaring what other people should do is supremely arrogant.

Maybe the government should get experts to decide the rules that other people should follow, and we should be taxed to fund these experts and their plans. That's worked so well.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#398

Post by Balgair »

Does anyone know of a central repo for these designs? Not just the face shields, but the masks, the intubation boxes, the ventilator tubes, etc?

Also, is there a way that hospitals can make an 'order/ask'? Like: we need 5 ventilator splitters.

There is this tremendous spirit and untapped generousity, but blind donating isn't the best, nor is getting a bunch of supplies that don't work.

Anyone trying to coordinate all this?

Post reply on HN