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

641–650 of 663 posts

Re: Apple Faceshield

#641

Post by masukomi »

barry-cotter wrote: post #496
simonh wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are only used by doctors and nurses when treating patients with open airways at very close range to protect from direct splatters with body fluids. Eg when intubating a patient that’s having explosive coughing fits. They are also part of a complete protective system including a mask, elasticated hair cover, full body wrap aprons and long arm gloves. There is no point using a shield without the rest if the gear…

> There is no point using a shield without the rest if the gear because if you are in a situation where you need the shield, you also need the rest as well. This is the same class of bullshit the WHO, CDC and FDA were pushing about face masks less than a week ago. There is no way this is worse than nothing. If a face shield used with no other PPE reduces the viral load the average healthcare worker is exposed to by 1…

> There is no way this is worse than nothing.

correct. it's not worse than nothing. it's literally not possible to be "worse than nothing".

However to your point it only protects against spray. So, yes, it's better than nothing if you're in front of someone coughing / vomiting directly on you.

BUT it doesn't do much of anything for the aerosolized particles. Better masks has coverings above the top to prevent those from coming in from above, but in this case apple appears to be going for quantity and speed over quality.

> if a face shield used with no other PPE reduces the viral load the average healthcare worker is exposed to by 1%

If you are practicing social distancing then a face shield really provides essentially zero protection. I have seen no evidence or even suggestion by a medical professional that wearing these while keeping a distance from infected individuals would provide ANY protection.

The main problem is aerosolized material (also direct contact but gloves and not touching your face address that). These don't help with aerosolized material. It just floats around them and gets inhaled anyway.

You want these if you are up close to someone who is infected or potentially infected because mouths spew forth bad things: vomit, coughing, etc. and you frequently don't have time to jump out of the way.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#642

Post by masukomi »

nineteen999 wrote: post #555
simonh wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are about a million infected individuals right now, and climbing, and each hospitalised patient in ITU may need these procedures several times a day. An ITU team performing the procedure might consist of 2 to 4 people and the shields should be discarded every time. The number of patients is also rising rapidly, so demand is very high. When you see doctors and nurses in full scrubs with face shields doing their…

> and the shields should be discarded every time Maybe I'm missing something, but the page literally has a section titled "Clean and reuse your face shield" and lists the chemicals that should be used to clean it.

this should only be done when you're so screwed that you don't have clean ones available. This is literally war-time thinking. It's also completely impractical to do at hospital scale, but if it's your only option...

Re: Apple Faceshield

#643

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #569
jnbiche wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pulling or pushing a tube down a patient's esophagus No, that's another procedure. Intubating respiratory patients involves targeting the trachea and avoiding the esophagus. An esophageal intubation can be Very Bad. That said, as an early advocate for face masks for the general public, I'm in 100% agreement that face shields are pointless for the general public. We don't need them.

What's the point of wearing a face mask if you're going to leave your eyes unprotected?

[deleted]

Re: Apple Faceshield

#644

Post by ChrisRR »

neuronic wrote: post #567
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.

COVID-19 is very likely only marginally spread by aerosols (I take this from Robert Koch Institute, Germany information [1]), approximately 10% by contact spread and mainly by direct transmission of droplets. Faceshield therefore protects from the main transmission vector. It's not impossible to get infected otherwise, simply much less likely. Your main enemy are getting coughed/sneezed/talked at in close proximity.…

Face shields also stop you from accidentally touching your face through habit which is the main transmission vector

Re: Apple Faceshield

#645

Post by jnbiche »

DanBC wrote: post #569
jnbiche wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pulling or pushing a tube down a patient's esophagus No, that's another procedure. Intubating respiratory patients involves targeting the trachea and avoiding the esophagus. An esophageal intubation can be Very Bad. That said, as an early advocate for face masks for the general public, I'm in 100% agreement that face shields are pointless for the general public. We don't need them.

What's the point of wearing a face mask if you're going to leave your eyes unprotected?

Mostly, to help prevent you the asymptomatic carrier, from spraying your respiratory droplets into the environment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/face-masks-cor...

The CDC is recommending then now. Do you disagree with their expert opinion (nevermind their stand a week ago)?

Finally, with respect to the mask wearer's protection, look into viral load.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#646

Post by samatman »

brodie wrote: post #558
samatman wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone, I had a mostly-broken left command key for the better part of a year so I despise the butterfly keys. Nonetheless, when I switched to a 16 inch it felt mushy and weird, and that's with almost a decade using the previous scissor keyboards, which feel effectively identical. I got used to it pretty quick though, and you couldn't pay me to go back.

So you like the new one then? I ordered a maxed out MBA and am curious to try it out. I’ve only used the original design.

Yeah, literally everything that they changed is a strict improvement. UI wise the 'new' keyboard is identical to the pre-butterfly, which gives me some confidence that it will also have the absurd durability which MacBook keyboards historically have.

I even suspect that the smaller keys, greater travel, and more space between each, has made me a bit more accurate and hence faster. No actual data to back that...

My remaining gripe is the lack of haptic feedback on the touch bar. But I expect to get many years of use out of this computer with no complaints.

The nice bonus is that the speakers are excellent. Like, shockingly good, I don't bother putting in earbuds for most video anymore.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#647

Post by jnbiche »

jnbiche wrote: post #645
DanBC wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of wearing a face mask if you're going to leave your eyes unprotected?

Mostly, to help prevent you the asymptomatic carrier, from spraying your respiratory droplets into the environment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/face-masks-cor... The CDC is recommending then now. Do you disagree with their expert opinion (nevermind their stand a week ago)? Finally, with respect to the mask wearer's protection, look into viral load.

To go into a little more depth (I assume you'll see this given that you appear to be monitoring my threads):

You seem to have a mental model whereby any viral particle that bypasses your body's physical barriers has "won" - game over. But that's now how the immune system works. We want to minimize the viral load as much as possible, since with all known infectious organizations there's a dose-response relationship: the larger the dose, the worse the illness often is. Tiny loads are often effectively fought off my the immune system.

We this is vividly in a bacterial illness like TB. In TB, there's little risk if you pass a coughing TB patient in the hall. But if you spend the day with them in a poorly-ventilated office, your risk increases. If you live with the patient, your risk is very high.

The same principle applies with viral illnesses like Covid-19. And given that the only access route that is actively pulling viral particles into the body is the respiratory tract, it stands to reason that protecting that route has a higher payoff than protecting a lower risk route like the eyes.

That's not to say that people in high risk situations like Covid-19 wards of hospitals shouldn't cover their eyes! Obviously, they should and do. However, for most of us, the best protection we can use without using BL4 protection gear (obviously, not practical or needed for the general public) is to wear a mask. Mostly, the mask is to protect others from you, but depending on what kind of mask it is, it can also protect you from the virus.

Finally, most health authorities are now recommending that the general public wear masks. CDC changed their recommendations a week or two ago to recommend wearing masks. As usual, the WHO is moving slowly as large bureaucracies often do, but I don't doubt they'll also recommend them in the end as more evidence of their efficacy emerges.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#648

Post by sailfast »

brodie wrote: post #542
sailfast wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point, I want to leave my house. Like, maybe in June? A face shield sounds like a prudent way to reduce one’s risk while also being able to interact with others. Why not let citizens buy them after shortages end?

They don’t reduce risk of infection in day to day situations. They’re specialized medical tools used in appropriate situations. Also, please put on a mask and leave your house. You aren’t on permanent curfew. Do some essential activities each day.

Of course I put on a mask, and I rarely leave the house. I was not aware they were not helpful when generally interacting with others - obviously then I wouldn’t want to wear one.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#649

Post by WillPostForFood »

mbreese wrote: post #344
WillPostForFood wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You store it in your home, then wear it when you go line up for food in case the person next to you turns and coughs or sneezes.

That isn't what a face shield is for and it won't protect you in that scenario.

It is exactly what it is for, to protect from droplets sprayed out of sick people. Particularly to keep it out of your eyes.

Re: Apple Faceshield

#650

Post by WillPostForFood »

beerandt wrote: post #407
WillPostForFood wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You store it in your home, then wear it when you go line up for food in case the person next to you turns and coughs or sneezes.

Imagine being at the gas pump, and the person next to you sprays gasoline at you. A faceshield might keep your face from getting soaking wet, but if you smell the fumes, it hasn't prevented exposure to your sinuses or lungs. Except you can't smell a virus.

For the most part, the virus is carried in the droplets, so if you protect yourself from the droplets, you're way ahead of the game.
Post reply on HN