[HN Gopher] Apple Faceshield
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Faceshield
Author : tosh
Score : 628 points
Date : 2020-04-07 18:56 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.apple.com)
| H8crilA wrote:
| Can someone explain to me why is Apple making this type of stuff?
| tempestn wrote:
| Because global pandemic.
| Octoth0rpe wrote:
| 1) Because they _can_. They have the manufacturing connections
| to quickly connect the needed pieces
|
| 2) Because they have the spare cash to spin this up very
| quickly.
|
| 3) Because they want to help (or at a minimum, look like
| they're helping).
|
| Are there any reasons why they _shouldn't_ be making this kind
| of stuff? Other companies also meet all 3 of those conditions,
| and I think we should be glad (note: I'm saying 'glad' and not
| 'grateful') that any of them are doing this.
| adventured wrote:
| > or at a minimum, look like they're helping
|
| They're going to make a million face shields this week, and
| one million per week thereafter, with the intention to
| produce them above US demand levels to help other nations.
| I'd say it qualifies as a lot more than looking like they're
| helping.
| bluehex wrote:
| Why not grateful as well?
| Octoth0rpe wrote:
| I think you _can_ be grateful, but I understand why people
| are hesitant to be 'grateful' when companies do things that
| are clearly in the company's best interest anyway, setting
| aside any social benefits.
|
| Be 'glad' when a company does something that helps society
| even if there are selfish motives. Be 'grateful' when a
| company does something that helps society when there's no
| obvious selfish motive.
|
| Hope that makes sense.
| smabie wrote:
| I mean, companies shouldn't be doing anything out of the
| goodness of their hearts, since they have a duty to
| shareholders to maximize the long-term value of the
| business. Of course, helping people and helping yourself
| are often aligned.
| scarface74 wrote:
| What other American company has the logistic and design know
| how that Apple has to make hundreds of millions devices?
| nerfhammer wrote:
| 3M
| lonelappde wrote:
| They are already doing it but can't do it all alone.
| adventured wrote:
| The US is an extremely massive manufacturing nation. There
| are dozens of companies in the US that _could_ mass produce
| these face shields. It 's great that Apple moved quickly to
| do it, it's certainly in their wheelhouse to make happen.
|
| These shields are easy to manufacture. They're ideal to
| rapidly produce, cheaply and at scale. Compared to normal
| shields in the industry they're no-frills, which is
| perfectly fine, as right now we just need volume.
| rubidium wrote:
| GM, Ford, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, 3M, Eli Lilly,
| Cummins, ... I could keep going. Maybe not all have it to
| the same degree as Apple, but are sufficient to make a face
| shield.
|
| Lot's of companies could do this. I'm glad Apple is giving
| it a go.
| mulmen wrote:
| GM and Ford also support massive networks of suppliers
| and contractors that have this capability as well. The
| list of capable companies is enormous.
| mcginleyr1 wrote:
| We (Nike) are https://news.nike.com/news/nike-ppe-face-
| shields-covid-19-su...
| scarface74 wrote:
| I can't speak for the rest of the companies, but GE is a
| pitiful shell of its former self and I am not sure that
| they could do anything well.
|
| I caught a small glimpse of GE fading away when I worked
| there.
| fetus8 wrote:
| Because Apple has the supply chain and manufacturing
| connections to produce this stuff quickly, efficiently, and
| safely, and then utilize their distribution partners to get
| these things in the hands of medical professionals quickly.
|
| EDIT: Octoth0rpe posted at the same exact time, lol.
| shervinafshar wrote:
| Do you believe they shouldn't? Enlighten us.
| H8crilA wrote:
| No. Do you?
| shervinafshar wrote:
| Yeah...No. Others provided enough wisdom for ya. Enjoy
| reading.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Thanks! Same to you.
|
| We can now terminate this useless thread.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Can someone explain to me why is Apple making this type of
| stuff?_
|
| Because contrary to the HN cliche, not all companies are solely
| motivated by filling shareholder pockets and being evil.
|
| See also: The hundreds of other companies making, importing,
| and distributing medical supplies at their own expense.
| cameronbrown wrote:
| People forget that even Tim Apple is just a regular person
| who may want to help.
| bane wrote:
| Hello, as you may or may not be aware, there is a global
| pandemic occurring. You can read about it here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pa...
|
| One notable problem during the pandemic is the shortage of
| personal protective equipment -- sometimes called PPE. This
| equipment is critical for people to prevent getting infected
| and infecting others. Organizations with large manufacturing
| capacities, such as Apple, are looking to help by leveraging
| their supply chains, manufacturing base, and other talents, by
| manufacturing PPE for medical workers or even for normal people
| like you!
| rkangel wrote:
| Because just as much as they are a design company, they're also
| a manufacturing company. They do enormous volume CNC machining,
| laser machine and any number of other processes that we don't
| know about. By doing this, they can mass manufacture things
| that other companies can't.
|
| Like many companies, they are looking at their skillset in
| terms of 'how can we use this to help in a pandemic', and every
| company doing that should be given credit for it.
| pottertheotter wrote:
| In addition to the other comments, they have an incentive to
| help get things back to normal so that they can open their
| stores and start making money again.
| seemslegit wrote:
| By wearing this, do I sign away to apple the rights to my entire
| head or just the skin-covered parts ?
| seemslegit wrote:
| I'm surprised the openings for the head band are analog and not
| thunderbolt
| Balgair wrote:
| 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?
| bArray wrote:
| It's simple enough to work well, cheap to produce, can be
| transported easily - very cool.
|
| Can we expect a ventilator machined from a block of aluminum
| next?
| rvz wrote:
| Apple: Apple FaceShield(r) - A magical yet
| disposable premium face shield from yours truly at One Apple
| Park.* *This device has not been tested or qualified
| to prevent or reduce infection, and does not provide particulate
| filtration. Not intended for use in surgical settings. These
| devices have not been disinfected or cleaned. Non-sterile.*
| Only $99 yearly subscription. /s Thank you. *Terms and
| Conditions Apply. Copyright (c) 2020 Apple Inc. All
| rights reserved.
|
| Everyone: Just like every face shield, but this one has a Apple
| Logo. Cool another collectable!
|
| Me: Ok.
| peterchane wrote:
| It's the EyeMask.
| all_blue_chucks wrote:
| We are all likely to be wearing PPE like this after the lockdowns
| are relaxed. Widespread testing + PPE use is the only chance we
| have to return to something normal before a vaccine is available.
| ytwombly wrote:
| Anyone else getting Radiohead album art vibes?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| One of my fantasy is to imagine how Apple would design these
| things out of their regular zone.
| mkchoi212 wrote:
| Great that Apple is doing something to give back during these
| weird times. Hope they keep their word and make sure that these
| face masks go to the places that need them the most.
| awinder wrote:
| I can hear Jony Ive describing it as "fashioned from a single
| continuous pane of clear polymer" in my ears right now...
| cwilkes wrote:
| Next version will remove the strap and people on HN will
| complain about how their current bands are useless and they
| don't want to change as the older ones are warmer.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| The next version will go from a rounded look and feel to
| completely flat design
| munificent wrote:
| The new Apple Magic Face.
| mshroyer wrote:
| or iProtection
| nevster wrote:
| "It _re-defines_ the world of PPE "
| cellis wrote:
| Machine precisioned, surgical grade...
| ttul wrote:
| For once, the term "surgical grade" actually matters...
| dkural wrote:
| Interestingly, on the page it says it is not for surgical
| use.
| buboard wrote:
| the level of clarity matches that of the human retina
| welly wrote:
| It's magical.
| [deleted]
| caetris1 wrote:
| Thank you for the laughs.
| Austin_Conlon wrote:
| The closest equivalent would be Jony Ive talking about the
| clarity of purpose in designing a space suit (34:00)
| https://charlierose.com/videos/17469.
| rvz wrote:
| 'We can't wait to see what you will come up with!' - After
| every product announcement.
| odiroot wrote:
| He'd give us a space grey version for that extra coolness.
| harryf wrote:
| Something like this? https://i.imgur.com/ROYWOav.png
| cityzen wrote:
| bravo! Was hoping I wasn't the only one.
| [deleted]
| kristofferR wrote:
| Is this their new AR headset?
| mkchoi212 wrote:
| Damn, the animations are smooth. But wish they made a better
| version of the adjustment mechanism. Feel like doctors will have
| a hard time adjusting the bands with their gloves on.
|
| Why not spend couple more cents and build in a clicking
| adjustment mechanism??
|
| But overall, good job Apple :)
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's probably for overall logistic reasons, so the masks can
| pack flat and be transported as efficiently as possible.
| tosh wrote:
| While this is not the first health related product from Apple I
| really hope they will do more in this direction going forward.
| briefcomment wrote:
| Is this significantly less effective than a normal surgical mask
| because of the large gaps?
| stellar678 wrote:
| Given that it covers the eyes, seems better than a surgical
| mask.
|
| Surgical masks aren't really filtering anything microscopic
| that's floating in the air, just blocking spit and other macro
| stuff.
| jhweoiru wrote:
| Wrong. Surgical masks block about 75% of small particles, N95
| respirators block 95%+.
| chadlavi wrote:
| this isn't a mask replacement, this is a shield to protect from
| larger aspirated drops when giving an infected individual
| medical care. It's worn over a mask.
| jhweoiru wrote:
| This is for the eyes. You still need a mask.
| DanBC wrote:
| You wear this and either a surgical mask or an FFP3 mask.
|
| This stops stuff going into your eyes. You must not ignore the
| ocular route.
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
|
| This will me more useful to healthcare professionals (or family
| carers) working in close proximity to patients (or family) who
| may have covid-19, especially if those patients are coughing or
| the HCPs are performing AGP - aerosol generating procedures.
| lechiffre10 wrote:
| __Strap not included and sold separately
|
| All jokes aside. This is great from Apple!
| gamesetmath wrote:
| Chinese knockoffs already available on Amazon
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't think anyone who replied to you realized this was a
| joke.
| mooneater wrote:
| In this case, that's great news
| abhiminator wrote:
| Great news with this important caveat -- that they work as
| effectively as the Apple's original design and can take
| hydro/chemical stress from multiple power-washes using strong
| disinfectants and other industrial-grade cleaners.
| joshmn wrote:
| Good, that means more are available for purchase and that this
| design is easy to replicate.
| fny wrote:
| This is such an insane problem. I've been trying to source N95s
| and everyone I've talked to, even very reliable people, keep
| bringing me counterfeits without realizing it.
|
| I'm actually really concerned their physicians are using those
| N95 masks.
|
| Thankfully face shields are less of a risk.
| Cass wrote:
| Speaking as a physician who's been handed a lot of
| respirators from ever more dodgy sources, how do I tell
| whether I'm given a counterfeit N95?
| mike_d wrote:
| The CDC has a great page [1] on fake N95 masks, including
| details at the bottom on identifying real ones. They also
| provide a list of everyone who is approved to make them
| [2].
|
| 1. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/usernotices/counterfeitR
| esp....
|
| 2. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_
| part...
| ethanbond wrote:
| Some commentators, disproportionately Silicon Valley VC
| types, are absolutely befuddled at why the FDA needs to exist
| and why regulations are slowing things down.
|
| It's like they can't imagine a crisis worse than COVID being
| created by a sloppy and irresponsible response (exempting, of
| course, responses that hurt their investment portfolios, all
| of which are bad).
| H8crilA wrote:
| Oh wow. I think it's easy to "fix" it: give them a pill (of
| actually sugar) but present it as a cure that you developed
| in your basement to whatever ailment they have. Skin in the
| game works wonders on such cheap bullshitters.
|
| Also please post links, always good to know whom to avoid.
| [deleted]
| mhb wrote:
| Where? All I see are ones using a piece of foam as a spacer.
| olliej wrote:
| That is a good thing - Apple clearly isn't making them as even
| a revenue making object, let alone a profit center, so I can't
| imagine they'll object to others also manufacturing them.
|
| The goal at the moment for global manufacturing to produce PPE
| and masks in huge numbers as fast as possible. Not to create
| new sources of revenue.
| viklove wrote:
| It's a PR making object
| rabuse wrote:
| Off-topic, but on the subject of Apple. FaceID is a nightmare to
| work with, while wearing a mask. The numeric input delay, after
| trying to open your phone for the 100th time, gets old.
| pvg wrote:
| Turn the autolock off when you go outside, keep the phone
| unlocked. You can turn it back on when you're done, it's a
| single prefs switch. And change your lock screen image to
| 'REMAIN INDOORS'.
| justwalt wrote:
| And what, replace my lock screen image that says 'BREATHE
| AIR'?
| fragmede wrote:
| Toggling that off requires disabling Apple Pay, and turning
| it back on requires re-adding cards to Apple Pay in order to
| use them.
| pvg wrote:
| You're thinking of something else. I mean specifically
| 'auto lock', the thing where the phone locks by itself
| after a timeout. It does not require turning off pay,
| changing PINs, passwords, etc. You just have to keep your
| phone unlocked while you're out.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/lku7F4L.jpg
| ship_it wrote:
| Doesn't the FaceID uses machine learning to "learn" from your
| face (ie. when having beard)? If not, I'm really disappointed
| as a vivid iPhone 6s user.
| skavi wrote:
| a beard develops over time. FaceID adapts to this kind of
| gradual change. An immediate change like putting a mask
| requires that you set up an alternative appearance in the
| settings in order to be recognized by FaceID.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Pet peeve, that may not just be me idly nitpicking, since this is
| presumably going to be used in a health care or healthcare-
| adjacent context where clear communication matters:
|
| Sterilization and disinfection are NOT the same thing. The
| products they suggest using for "sterilization" are disinfecting
| agents. They will kill most, but not all, microbes. Sterilization
| implies that you've eliminated everything, and requires much more
| intense methods.
|
| For example: 3% hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant. The most
| similar sterilant that I'm aware of is hydrogen peroxide gas
| plasma.
| joenot443 wrote:
| It sounds as if you're right. As someone who wasn't familiar
| with the difference between those two processes, when I read:
|
| "You can sterilize and reuse your face shield. It has been
| evaluated to be compatible with the following chemicals:"
|
| I interpreted that to mean that those chemicals could be used
| to sterilize the mask, which you've now explained to be
| incorrect. A nitpick, but a valid one all the same!
| dawnerd wrote:
| I don't think they are suggesting using it. They just state
| it's what they tested the materials to be compatible with "It
| has been evaluated to be compatible with the following
| chemicals:"
|
| Since this is going to medical professionals they should
| already know how to sterilize face shields and the like.
| jazoom wrote:
| Sterilisation is done in an autoclave. Not with any of those
| things listed. The person you replied to is correct. The page
| is misleading. Source: I'm a doctor.
| bosky101 wrote:
| Related: 3d printing face shields
| https://www.thebetterindia.com/222322/coronavirus-mumbai-sta...
| pandler wrote:
| Cool to see more news from Mumbai. I've been following a close
| friend of mine (also in Mumbai) on various social media as he
| works on his goal of fabricating "100,000 M-19 Face Shields for
| India" in his maker space.
|
| https://www.makersasylum.com/covid19/
|
| Their open source face shield designs, which include different
| materials: https://github.com/MakersAsylumIndia/Covid-19
| snitzr wrote:
| How does Apple make these nice animated videos?
| severine wrote:
| https://brandnewschool.com/work
|
| Or other such studio, probably...
| ALittleLight wrote:
| This is awesome and I'm glad companies are doing things like
| this. It made me interested if face shields are something I
| should add to my own PPE collection.
|
| Very interesting summary of the effectiveness of face shields [1]
|
| "Utilizing a cough aerosol simulator loaded with influenza virus
| (aerosol volume mean diameter of 8.5 mm) and a breathing
| simulator, Lindsley et al.[16] reported 96% and 92% reductions in
| the risk of inhalational exposure immediately after a cough for a
| face shield at distances of 18 in (46 cm) and 72 in (183 cm),
| respectively. Decreasing the aerosol size to 3.4 mm resulted in
| the face shield blocking 68% of the inhalational exposure at 18
| in (46 cm) immediately after the cough and 23% over 1-30 min
| post-cough (during which time the larger aerosol particles had
| settled out and droplet nuclei had formed and remained airborne
| so that flow occurred more easily around the edges of the face
| shield)"
|
| Seems like a face shield may be very good protection for a short
| term exposure - especially combined with a mask. e.g. walking by
| someone who coughs.
|
| It also makes me wonder about a face shield fixed with something
| to blow filtered air in from the top of the shield. I assume that
| would make it less likely for air to come around the edges of the
| mask and possibly be more comfortable than a mask. You could have
| a shield blowing a constant cool breeze on you. Although this
| would have the disadvantage of needing batteries and replacing
| filters.
|
| 1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015006/
| seventytwo wrote:
| There are things called PAPRs which are an enclosed version of
| what you're taking about.
| leipert wrote:
| The Czech 3D Printer company Prusa has been on it for a while:
| https://www.prusa3d.com/covid19/ and they have been open-sourcing
| the design. You can print it on a 3D printer.
|
| Based on that design (and others) makers in Germany have started
| organizing, so that people can either request shields or supply
| shields. Organized on Slack and into local distribution hubs. We
| hace started sharing supplies and even got discounts from
| filament vendors: https://www.makervsvirus.org/en/
|
| Edit: Just wanted to share something related and not downplay
| Apple with this comment. Would love if they'd opensource their
| designs ;)
| jrmg wrote:
| In the Bay Area, Maker Nexus (a maker space in Sunnyvale) is
| coordinating production of these:
| http://makernexuswiki.com/index.php?title=3D_printed_face_sh...
| gambler wrote:
| 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.
| quakeguy wrote:
| For smaller hospitals i'd guess every single one piece of
| protective equipment counts.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 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.
| leipert wrote:
| The point is: A lot of folks own a 3d printer and they are
| local. I can produce ~50 shields per day, that means I can
| supply shields to around 5 to 10 doctor's offices per day. My
| suburb in the city seems to have a few dozen doctors. Also if
| they can have a shield tomorrow, that is better than a shield
| in 2 weeks.
|
| This can be a supplement until the original supply chains are
| up to speed and the doctor's can get the real equipment
| through official channels.
| blhack wrote:
| Because it turns out you actually can 3D print some of these
| in mass quantities. Some of the printers we are working with
| right now are producing on the order of 10s of thousands of
| parts per day. And now, there are tool shops in the US _right
| now_ cutting injection molds to make those parts in the
| hundreds of thousands of parts per day.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| The kind of 3d printing Prusa does (and provided plans for)
| is a tabletop/ amateur printer, not something which can
| scale.
| blhack wrote:
| The 3D model absolutely can scale.
| dugditches wrote:
| Sure.
|
| But for an equal amount of effort, raws and manpower you
| could get much more out of traditional manufacturing,
| much quicker.
|
| The product is a very simple stamp, with very simple dies
| with little wasted material. Perfect for traditional
| production methods.
|
| It's great people with machines are contributing to the
| effort, and empowering/informing individuals to be able
| to do so as well. But it's just done simpler
| traditionally.
| kojeovo wrote:
| These 3d printed ones are being delivered and used in
| hospitals in my area. Not sure in what quantity, but I'm
| sure they'd love traditional made ones too. If only it
| was being provided. So what you say isn't wrong in
| theory, but we're not dealing with an ideal situation in
| the first place.
| kharak wrote:
| I don't understand your argument. Those 3D printers exist
| and can be used. Manufacturing and those printers are not
| exclusive options.
| blhack wrote:
| This is all great in theory, but in reality there are
| hundreds of thousands of these parts being delivered to
| hospitals right now, and they came from lots of people
| with lots of 3D printers at their houses, hackerspaces,
| and printer farms.
|
| We can definitely talk about what would have been better
| and more efficient, but in the meantime people need this
| stuff _today_.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| It's not a zero sum game.
|
| It makes tons of sense for people with 3d printers to
| print as many as they can now because they can get them
| in the hands of people _now_. But once dedicated
| manufacturing comes online, that capability is going to
| be quickly become irrelevant.
|
| The comment I replied to seemed to suggest individuals
| were printing 10s of thousands of these per day which is
| clearly not true. Thousands of individuals are printing a
| few each day which is vastly different.
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| > But once dedicated manufacturing comes online, that
| capability is going to be quickly become irrelevant.
|
| You're right, but after this emergency all those
| production lines will be retooled to things that are more
| profitable.
|
| The upside is that this pandemic has basically created a
| grass roots production network to fill gaps that will
| always exist in traditional manufacturing.
|
| If the next world-wide issue can be at least partially
| mitigated by small plastic parts, that gap will again be
| filled by 3d printers, and we're all better off for it.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 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.
| gambler wrote:
| _> 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.
| ChristianBundy wrote:
| 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.
| lozaning wrote:
| As someone working with my maker space to deliver 3,500
| shields a week to our local health organizations, I can
| confirm we do all in fact feel good for being able to play
| our small part. Helping people feels amazing, I'd recommend
| it to anyone!
| manfredo wrote:
| 3d printing is probably less effective than manufacturing at
| scale, but it has much lower setup time and overhead cost.
| Not to mention, this escalated demand for masks and face
| shields is going to be very short - 1 or 2 years at most.
| Setting up a whole factory to fulfill only a year or two of
| demand is not effective. By comparison, you can use your 3d
| printer for other stuff after the pandemic is over.
| mdtusz wrote:
| For what it's worth, this design has been vetted by health care
| professionals and provides better coverage, as well as being
| faster and easier to print.
|
| https://github.com/aon3d/covid-face-shield
|
| Full disclosure: I work for Aon3d.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Can confirm - for example both the main maker space Fablab &
| local hackerspace Base 48 are making these face shields for
| medical personel here in Brno, the second largest city of Czech
| Republic.
|
| I've also heard about regional schools using their 3D printers
| to make those.
|
| You can see the shields, complete with the "Prusa" label on the
| 3D printed parts even in regular news coverage worn by medical
| personel.
| EmilStenstrom wrote:
| 3D-printing is great, but other forms or manufacturing are
| way faster. That's how Apple is making 1.000.000 shields per
| day.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Sure, it you have the industrial tools needed for that. The
| Prusa shield needs a 3D printer (which many have or know
| someone that have it) a piece of laminating foil & hole
| punch (which you likely have if you have laminating foil).
| This way it can be made locally from local resources.
|
| If you have a factory that can make a face shields by the
| milion, definitely go for it! Still, you need then to
| transfer the finished shields to all the many places that
| need them, which can somtimes be tricky with all the
| lockdowns and border checks in place.
| l33tfr4gg3r wrote:
| ...(APFS)
| klohto wrote:
| I'm sad that even though this unique design was done and put
| online for anyone to print by Prusa, he is hardly mentioned now.
| On top of that, the design is already commercialized.
|
| EDIT: I see now that the design is different, you're right
| blackguardx wrote:
| Can you sterilize a 3D print easily? The major downside to 3D
| prints is all the voids and pinholes the process creates, aside
| from material compatibility issues with sterilizers.
|
| This design is entirely die cut, which is incredibly fast. A
| machine could probably stamp out 10 of these in the time it
| takes to print one layer in a typical FDM printer.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Can you sterilize a 3D print easily
|
| You can - depending on the material. The problem is keeping
| them sterile because, as you point out, there's gaps between
| layers. And there's wear on the material with most
| sterilization processes. Which doesn't really help with the
| end goal. Ideally these would be quickly discarded.
|
| > A machine could probably stamp out 10 of these in the time
| it takes to print one layer in a typical FDM printer
|
| An _Apple_ machine, right? Have they shared their designs so
| that other manufacturing facilities can build them? If they
| did not... then you 'll get the obsession with 3d printing.
| blackguardx wrote:
| Die cutter machines are expensive, but very common. Making
| the dies can be expensive, but it is routinely done all
| over the world.
|
| I agree that Apple should share the design as well as the
| tooling designs. I have a friend that started mass
| producing masks and open-sourced the design:
| https://whitelabelfaceshields.com
| gowld wrote:
| What do you mean by:
|
| > On top of that, the design is already commercialized.
| klohto wrote:
| I mean that if you check Amazon, companies are making money
| of it. It's great that it's getting out just not so great
| that it's selling with fat margin on top.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| I get what you are saying, but there have to be incentives
| for manufacturers to start making them. A fat margin at
| first will do that. If it's an open design, manufacturing
| competition will swiftly reduce that fat margin.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| What's stopping anyone from printing and selling them at
| parity or at a loss?
|
| It's not like you can print out that Apple page on your ink
| jet printer and wear it.
| [deleted]
| smabie wrote:
| If they weren't making money off of it, they wouldn't sell
| it. Price gouging is exactly what is needed in a crisis.
| Once the demand signals become incorporated in the price,
| more and more companies will start making it.
| infecto wrote:
| Why sad? This is a massive global issue that we have not
| experienced in modern times. Who cares about attribution. Apple
| has donated a bunch of masks? Who cares its just a face mask
| and this design is different then what Prusa is printing. As
| long as lives are being saved thats all that matters right?
| klohto wrote:
| It's not like if you mention him you lose bunch of time and
| people die. The design should go out by any means possible,
| but is one line of attribution so bad?
| [deleted]
| infecto wrote:
| Its not even an exact copy of his design. /thread
| randyrand wrote:
| Looking at the pursa video, its a different design.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP7z3iw76GA
| mkolodny wrote:
| I'd guess this is the face shield you're referring to:
| https://www.prusaprinters.org/prints/25857-prusa-face-shield
|
| It's awesome that Prusa designed and open sourced face shields.
| Apple seems to have improved on those designs - to me, that's
| exactly the point of open source.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Apple seems to have improved on those designs
|
| I'm not sure the Apple design was influenced by Prusa at all.
| The curved plastic is basically universal, and was present in
| face shields long before the coronavirus crisis. Some face
| shields used a rigid molded plastic shield, but that's
| obviously much harder to manufacture. If the shield is made
| of flexible plastic, something is clearly needed to tension
| it; the Prusa design used a rigid printed component, and
| Apple used another flexible component.
| endorphone wrote:
| How do you mean? This Apple design looks very different from
| any that I can find attributed to "Prusa" (not sure if that's a
| person or a company, but the company put out 3D print designs
| that are very different). And all of them, of course, copy
| shields that were out long before the current crisis.
|
| A lot of people were prototyping shields to satisfy a sudden
| and overwhelming demand, and with 3D printers it seemed like
| dozens of variations appeared overnight. I don't think
| attribution is a big concern.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Prusa is both a person (joseph prusa) and the company he made
| (Prusa3d) that designs and manufactures 3d printers.
|
| You're right though that they're not the same, beyond what
| similarity the function brings.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| There was a community printing effort in Waterloo to make Prusa
| masks as well, which similarly was evolved for scaling reasons
| into a design that could be done entirely with laser cutting:
|
| https://www.canadianshieldppe.ca/pages/our-story
| mhb wrote:
| I was curious, so I looked at the Prusa design. The Apple
| design has enough additional cleverness that it's quite a
| stretch to call them the same.
|
| The main difference is that it doesn't require 3D printing
| which is obviously a deal-breaker for the quantity needed. By
| incorporating the clear plastic as a structural element, they
| eliminated a piece from the design. The bottom piece is also
| eliminated.
|
| Altogether more elegant and more useful than the Prusa design.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I wish media would stop tooting how amazing "3D Printing" is.
| It is just _one_ of the ways of manufacturing. IMO, it is a
| poor way to do anything besides home hobby projects (there
| are a few medical exceptions). It takes 12+ hours to print
| anything useful. Yet media loves talking about 3D printing.
|
| For anyone who has worked in product design and
| manufacturing, it is one thing to be able to make a few
| prototypes (which is where 3D printing shines), and another
| challenge to make 5 million of those prototypes per week. It
| is monumentally difficult to produce anything in high volume.
|
| I wish the media would talk about many other amazing
| manufacturing technologies - injection molding (20 seconds a
| part!), die cast aluminium, water jet cutting, laser cutting,
| metal stamping, and machining. These are equally amazing
| technologies that make the world tick...yet 3D printing gets
| disproportionately amount of attention. Mold making alone is
| a topic of insane complexity and engineering challenges.
| outworlder wrote:
| > It takes 12+ hours to print anything useful. Yet media
| loves talking about 3D printing.
|
| Face shields are useful and can be printed in under 3 hours
| (for the Prusa design). Some people have knocked the time
| down to about one hour.
|
| For something that costs cents and can be made at home,
| that's pretty useful.
|
| > it is a poor way to do anything besides home hobby
| projects
|
| Tell that to SpaceX.
|
| "3D Printing" encompasses a whole lot of technologies which
| all fall under the additive manufacturing umbrella. FDM is
| the most common, but it's not the only one. Multi jet
| fusion, laser sintering and others are "3d printing" just
| the same. Not all of them will take hours to build a part.
|
| > injection molding (20 seconds a part!), die cast
| aluminium, water jet cutting, laser cutting, metal
| stamping, and machining.
|
| And none of this, except for laser cutting, can be done
| outside dedicated manufacturing facilities. All these
| technologies have been around for decades now. Why would
| they get any attention? But they actually do... "company X
| builds a new factory at Y location". Boom. Attention. They
| won't care about the specific technologies... because why
| would they?
|
| Take injection molding. It may take 20 seconds, but that's
| _ after the manufacturing facilities and the mold are setup
| _ . This is unlike essentially pressing a _print_ button,
| which is where we want to go.
|
| > and another challenge to make 5 million of those
| prototypes per week
|
| 5 million units a week... these are not prototypes. Call
| them production samples or what have you, but this is an
| assembly line.
|
| The only reason we are even talking about 3D printing is
| because we are having shortages. All those tried and proven
| technologies are unable to keep up with the demand. So
| people are trying to supplement them with other, less time-
| efficient, technologies.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Having worked in manufacturing for over 10 years, most of
| your claims are either A) Factually false B) Twisting my
| original points and cherry picking. No one is questioning
| the unique aspects that 3D printing brings to the table,
| it is just the wrong type of solution for this situation.
|
| > Face shields are useful and can be printed in under 3
| hours (for the Prusa design). Some people have knocked
| the time down to about one hour. For something that costs
| cents and can be made at home, that's pretty useful.
|
| 3 hours is still too long and that's not the central
| point I am arguing about. It is mostly about media
| coverage. If you have a 3D printer, by all means use it.
|
| > Tell that to SpaceX.
|
| I've worked on 3D printers before it was cool. Way back
| in 2005, I designed and built turbine blade prototypes on
| Stratasys 3D printers that cost upwards of $250k. Can we
| get past this narrative of 3D printing usefulness to its
| narrow application? It is not going to revolutionize
| manufacturing anytime soon. Tell that to GE, Lockheed
| Martin, Apple, Intel, Boeing, etc. Every company has
| invested in 3D printing primarily for prototyping and
| occasionally for medium-volume production. You're not
| going to see 3D printed Nike soles on $40 shoe anytime
| soon.
|
| If you look at the amount of manufacturing that takes
| place on 3D printers vs. other technologies, you would
| not even see the slice of the pie that is for "3D
| printing".
|
| Additive manufacturing has _niche_ applications.
|
| > All these technologies have been around for decades
| now. Why would they get any attention?
|
| Because in the time of war, when the nation is mobilizing
| to making _millions_ of something, you want the press to
| talk about things that work?
|
| > Take injection molding. It may take 20 seconds, but
| that's _ after the manufacturing facilities and the mold
| are setup _ . This is unlike essentially pressing a print
| button, which is where we want to go.
|
| No shit, you need mold that takes time to make and
| validate. Usually 3-4 weeks, sometimes 8 weeks. But when
| there is a national emergency, you can turn it around
| within 48 hours. That's including the entire NRE process,
| design, validation and tooling. After 48 hours, you would
| have printed a few dozen parts in your beloved 3D
| printers. I would be churning out a part _every_ 20
| seconds after the initial 48 hours. Even if it is 100+
| hours, it is still worth it when the quantity you want to
| make is 5 million.
|
| > 5 million units a week... these are not prototypes.
| Call them production samples or what have you, but this
| is an assembly line.
|
| Hey! why would you point that out? Isn't that obvious
| that _by definition_ you cannot make 5 million
| prototypes? "These prototypes" - I was referring to the
| aforementioned reference to the prototypes in the
| previous sentence. Jeez.
| catalogia wrote:
| > _IMO, it is a poor way to do anything besides home hobby
| projects (there are a few medical exceptions)._
|
| It's good for various sorts of low-volume production,
| particularly prototyping. But yes, the hype about 3d
| printing putting factories out of business is very silly.
| m4rtink wrote:
| I saw an interesting demonstration by a local research
| center where they have shown a reconfigurable
| manufacturing line that included robotic manipulators,
| CNC machines and a 3D printer. The idea is that you order
| it to build something and it atumatically assigns jobs to
| the machines and assembles the end result (in this case a
| pen stand with your name on it, with a pen inside
| assembled & delivered to you by the multi machine
| assembly line with the wheeled robot shufling parts
| betwen machines.
|
| Their longer term planes are much more grandiose, with a
| system that connect multiple factories with many machines
| each. You woul upload your project files and the system
| will assign manufacturing to the most suitable machines
| in the factories and handle all the part transfer between
| the factories and assembling, with the resulting product
| arriving to you all complete and packaged.
|
| In this structure a 3D rpinter makes a lot of sense, you
| can use it to print parts for smaller orders & for bigger
| orders let the machine build a mold for injection
| molding. Also, you can use 3D printers to print parts to
| enhance the machines you already have to make fulfilling
| the order more efficient, like some special packaging
| tools or assembly jigs.
|
| So 3D printing is not likely to replace factory mass
| production, but has the potential to enahnce it
| signifficantly & make it much more flexible.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Yep, if a hospital has a couple of 3D printers donated to
| them, by all means, make _something_. I am mostly
| concerned with the coverage from the media.
|
| Here are a few articles:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/health/librarian-3d-printi
| ng-...
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronavirus-3d-printing-
| vent...
|
| https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/
| art...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-
| coronavirus-3d-pri...
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/27/950240/3d-pri
| nti...
|
| And NYTimes: https://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+3d+p
| rinting+coronavi...
|
| It's cool but I am cynical that media loves talking about
| 3D printing because it generates more viewership; no one
| wants to read an article "Decades old technology of
| injection molding is still the best way to make high
| volume parts during this pandemic".
| jaywalk wrote:
| Most of those other techniques are not new and something
| that you can easily do on your desk at home. That's why
| they don't get media attention.
|
| Agree with everything else you said, though.
| kube-system wrote:
| Some of those listed by the other commenter are not as
| accessible... but theres a lot of accessible hobby
| manufacturing techniques that have existed for a long
| time but don't get the same attention because they're not
| as new and don't come with the nomenclature that implies
| that it's as easy as clicking "print".
|
| https://www.harborfreight.com/power-tools/routers-cutout-
| too...
|
| https://www.uscutter.com/USCutter-MH-Series-Vinyl-Cutter-
| w-V...
|
| https://www.smooth-on.com/applications/industrial/
| nabla9 wrote:
| I don't see how Prusa invented anything that apple uses.
| Besides, one is mass produced, other is 3d printed.
|
| Prusa:
| https://manual.prusa3d.com/Guide/How+to+assemble+the+Prusa+F...
|
| KSU: https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kennesaw-state-staff-
| members-...
| gowld wrote:
| 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."
|
| Apple plans to ship more than one million shields by the end of
| this week and a further million each week after that. So far the
| company has been working to distribute them across the US, but
| plans to expand elsewhere soon. "Our focus is on unique ways
| Apple can help, meeting essential needs of caregivers urgently
| and at a scale the circumstances require," Cook says.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Thank you! I had missed this news, so a link to a support
| article with no explanation was a little mystifying.
| woofie11 wrote:
| 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.
| celticninja wrote:
| this sort of face shield is useful in clinical situations
| where the wearer is protected from patients who may cough or
| sneeze right in their face. for going to the shop what you
| need is an N95 or just mouth/nose covering mask/scarf.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Might be useful for the shop clerk though, who is seeing a
| hundred people in a row.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Apple is making a million a week and donating direct to
| regional health services.
| gambler wrote:
| Like I posted below, you can make an improvised "face shield"
| out of plastic food wrap in about 15 seconds. No parts
| needed. Wrap it around your head at forehead level so it
| sticks to itself. Keep the bottom part loose, so you can
| freely breathe.
|
| Readily available, cheap, disposable, lightweight, does not
| restrict visibility.
|
| If you're working in the wind, you might need to weigh down
| the bottom part with something, but that's also trivial to
| do.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Or just put a two-gallon sandwich bag over your head.
|
| Not recommended for infants and small children, of
| course...
| ericflo wrote:
| You're saying to literally wrap your face in plastic wrap
| and leave a little hole to breathe? I think someone's going
| to try this advice and suffocate.
| gambler wrote:
| _> You're saying to literally wrap your face in plastic_
|
| Are you trolling or serious? I said forehead, not face.
| Obviously, _do not_ wrap plastic foil around your face.
| ericflo wrote:
| If it's around your forehead, how is it shielding you?
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Plastic food wrap in my country comes in rolls 12-24"
| wide. This is more than enough to cover your forehead
| down past your lower jaw.
| tptacek wrote:
| Face shields make sense in clinical settings, but do they
| make much sense for casual use? It's hard enough to get
| people to wear masks.
| gentaro wrote:
| They make sense if there's a big apple logo on the front.
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| Protective Goggles (like the 3M type) would be a better fit
| for most use cases. No need for touching or readjusting,
| having to be careful when looking down, etc.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Why? Most ordinary non-healthcare-worker people have no need
| for this level of PPE, especially if they're following social
| distances rules like they should be.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I can't control what other people do in grocery stores.
| They walk too close and there's nothing I can do about it.
| I'd like something to keep shit out of my eyes.
| DennisP wrote:
| I'm not saying don't get a face shield, but even with
| shield and mask you still want to maintain distance.
|
| Last time I shopped in a grocery store, I went when it
| wasn't crowded and prioritized staying away from people.
| If someone came towards me I went the other way. If
| someone was already in an aisle pointed toward me, or was
| pointed the other way but not far along, I didn't go into
| that aisle just then. If someone stood in front of an
| item I wanted, I came back for it, or skipped it if it
| wasn't important.
|
| I also wore a mask, but I treated that store as hostile
| territory, focused on avoiding people, and got the heck
| out as fast as I could.
| _jal wrote:
| Get a welding mask, then. It'll do the same thing.
| mitjak wrote:
| not to equivocate but this reminds me of the pro gun
| control discussion
| lonelappde wrote:
| Masks are shields, not arms. they pose no risk to others.
|
| If you are referring to humans as potentially lethal
| weapons, and stay at home orders, then, yup.
| megablast wrote:
| > They walk too close and there's nothing I can do about
| it.
|
| Are you stuck in place? Can you not move? Do you have no
| voice?
|
| There is a lot you can do, and other do about it.
| selectodude wrote:
| Wear sunglasses.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Maybe chemical goggles. Though I'm wary of anything that
| touches my face, because I have to wash my face and worry
| about pushing the virus into my eyes.
| DennisP wrote:
| Bear in mind that soap doesn't just wash off the virus,
| it destroys it. The virus is held together by lipids,
| which soap dissolves.
|
| Still, that's an interesting point, maybe it's a good
| reason face shields are better than goggles.
| cbhl wrote:
| I have seen restaurant employees also wearing face shields,
| especially if they work cash. A lot of places near me have
| also been putting up sheets of plastic between the cashier
| and the customer.
| jjallen wrote:
| 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.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| From the post above "These pack flat, one hundred per
| box..." it's clear they are packaged for large
| organizations. They almost certainly have _zero_ interest
| in developing individual packaging for consumers.
|
| Didn't vote him down, but it is a bit silly. Apple isn't
| becoming a medical supply company, they are producing a
| product to fill an urgent medical need. They don't have the
| distribution network to supply these to retail, nor is it
| likely they ever will.
| jjallen wrote:
| You don't think Apple has literally one of the best
| distribution networks in the world? What percent of the
| country is within a few miles of an Apple store that
| already receives shipments a few times a week?
| trynewideas wrote:
| if you aren't intubating people or treating severe cases of
| this stupid virus then get in the back of the line behind
| everyone who is
| olliej wrote:
| Maybe some day, but hospitals are obviously going to get
| priority until they have sufficient PPE for all their
| employees. Hospitals are already unable to provide sufficient
| PPE for the doctors and nurses, let alone the rest of the on
| site staff - so any mask going to a non care provider means a
| care provider does not have such.
| docbrown wrote:
| > 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.
| sailfast wrote:
| 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?
| epicureanideal wrote:
| 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
| buy "unnecessary" Personal Protective Equipment. It creates
| some distributed supply in case something unexpected
| happens, even if under normal circumstances the equipment
| is unused.
| abduhl wrote:
| What about the environmental impact of people buying
| everything "just in case?" Should we be stockpiling oil
| like crazy right now when prices are low just in case
| (while also artificially driving up demand)?
|
| Isn't one of the key criticisms of farm and manufacturing
| subsidies that they are wasteful uses of our budget while
| one of the arguments in favor of them is that it
| maintains our infrastructure "just in case"? What about
| trying to buy out a foreign company to control a
| coronavirus vaccine or mandating that all domestic
| companies fulfill federal government orders before any
| international orders so that we have enough materials
| "just in case"?
|
| My point here is that the just in case attitude for non-
| essential goods like PPE normalizes the same thinking in
| other arenas and it is unclear where we should draw the
| line. It is a slippery slope.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > Should we be stockpiling oil like crazy right now when
| prices are low just in case (while also artificially
| driving up demand)?
|
| yes? there's a national strategic oil reserve. that's
| exactly the thing it should do.
| DennisP wrote:
| If we did more "just in case" and less "just in time"
| we'd be in a much better situation right now. Maybe we
| need a better tradeoff between efficiency and resiliency.
| ribs wrote:
| Yeah but he said face shield
| uxp wrote:
| 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 used in a hospital, they are
| covered in packaging with specific serial numbers and lot
| numbers that allow reconciliation if it's found that the
| goods are not sterile or have deficiencies. There is also
| a provenance or chain-of-command aspect that allows
| attestation of safety throughout the entire supply chain.
| While we might be talking about how to sterilize n95
| masks, reuse face shields, and asking for donations of
| PPE from the public right now during a pandemic, the fact
| remains that in normal circumstances there is massive
| liabilities that hospitals and clinics would be subjected
| to if they started sourcing protective equipment from the
| public that could have been tampered with, may be
| slightly used and broken, or otherwise could cause harm
| to the patient and they'd be unable to identify the
| source of those resources. Everybody stocking a "handful"
| of PPE isn't a scalable solution to maintain a national
| supply.
|
| This is one reason why we pay federal taxes.
| zbrozek wrote:
| Stanford hospital, for example, throws away one N95 per
| patient doctor visit. They are not sterilizing and
| reusing. So my friend who works there is using many
| dozens of them per day. It seems like they could come up
| with material-preserving procedures like sterilization,
| but they're not.
| prostheticvamp wrote:
| Because best data to date is that sterilization
| procedures damage the mask in ways that render it unsafe.
|
| When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do
| so, the masks won't go in the trash. In the meantime, I'd
| you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them
| safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that
| will get you sick.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| This is untrue. Stanford Medicine released a study around
| March 22.
|
| The TLDR is 70degC heat for 30 mins. Avoid alcohol, it
| kills the static charge in the mask fibres.
|
| https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fstanfordmedic
| ine...
| ksk wrote:
| >Because best data to date is that sterilization
| procedures damage the mask in ways that render it unsafe.
|
| There are multiple sterilizing procedures, and multiple
| material compositions for masks. Which ones were you
| referring to?
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Maybe someone like the CDC?
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-
| strategy/d...
| lonelappde wrote:
| 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.
| klipt wrote:
| Says something about our society, though, that doctors at
| Stanford can use a mask per chat "just in case", while
| just across the bay at Oakland Kaiser nurses are working
| with multiple confirmed coronavirus patients on a single
| mask...
| lonelappde wrote:
| It's says that some people can't resist spreading rumors
| and jumping to conclusions. You have no idea how long
| standard docs are stretching masks.
| gwright wrote:
| What does it say?
|
| It seems to me that pretty much _every_ society has
| struggled to deal with this. Perhaps because it isn 't
| something that has many reasonable direct analogues in
| our collective experience?
|
| It is very easy to spot deficiencies after the fact. Much
| harder to spot them before.
| jonplackett wrote:
| It says that there's massive inequality?
| gwright wrote:
| I don't think it says that at all. You can't cherry pick
| two particular institutions and draw some sort of
| conclusion about "society". In this particular case it
| seems like the entire conclusion is based on nothing
| other than preconceived notions of what reactions
| "Stanford" and "Oakland" trigger in the reader. There
| doesn't seem to be any particular details about the
| actual situation at either location and how those
| institutions are managed.
| bolasanibk wrote:
| Like this one:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22680799
| icebraining wrote:
| The problem is that there isn't a known safe procedure
| for sterilization. Universities are working on that:
| https://news.engin.umich.edu/2020/04/engineers-work-to-
| decon...
| favorited wrote:
| They're setting up one of these[0] in Boston, allowing
| hospitals to sterilize and reuse 80k masks / day. There's
| an article[1] in the Boston Globe about it, but I'm not
| sure what the paywall situation is there.
|
| [0] https://www.battelle.org/inb/battelle-critical-care-
| decontam...
|
| [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/02/metro/boston-
| hospital...
| catblast wrote:
| > which is the process of pulling or pushing a tube down
| a patient's esophagus.
|
| In the context of intubation that is most definitely a
| _bad_ outcome.
| roenxi wrote:
| > 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-shields could be cleaned fairly easily
| then it probably is a scalable supply. Particularly if
| medical professionals are allowed to supply their own
| work tools.
| mbreese wrote:
| 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.
| dillonmckay wrote:
| 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.
| awaythrower wrote:
| 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.
| awaythrower wrote:
| Strawman and wrong.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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 obviously wearing a face shield will protect against
| self-inflicted infections from a contaminated finger.
| mbreese wrote:
| > it seems pretty likely that I will be protected
|
| And you'd be wrong. Sure, a face shield will protect you
| from liquid streaming out at you (partially). However, it
| isn't a liquid that you need to protect yourself from in
| this instance... it is aerosolized particles. And those
| travel in the air. So when you breathe in, that air can
| and will move around the face shield.
|
| If you really want to protect yourself from other people
| sneezing -- stay away from other people. That's why
| social distancing is still the primary recommendation.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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 rather not talk to you in person if you aren't going
| to cover your face, tyvm :)
| chrischen wrote:
| Go light a cigarette or incense and and see if a face
| shield prevents you from inhaling any smoke.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| dillonmckay wrote:
| I used a face-shield in October when I was using an HVLP
| paint sprayer indoors, so there are definite uses besides
| the current pandemic.
|
| It definitely cost more than a few dollars and is not
| disposable.
|
| Also, according to the documentation, these are re-usable
| and can be sanitized w/ alcohol or H2O2.
| cayblood wrote:
| All it takes is one accidental sneeze in a grocery store
| for a face shield to become useful.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| "Everybody stocking a "handful" of PPE isn't a scalable
| solution to maintain a national supply."
|
| No, but there's no harm in it either, and some potential
| benefit in case it takes a few days for the federal
| government to organize a response.
|
| We all assume the government is going to make sure the
| food supply is maintained, but everyone is also buying
| some extra food just in case there's a temporary gap.
|
| We don't need to choose just one way of preparing for the
| unknown.
|
| Also, I was just saying the general public might purchase
| a few of these masks for themselves for their own use,
| not that hospitals might rely on the public for supplies.
| uxp wrote:
| For what, though? And I'm 100% being honest here, what is
| the specific situation you are envisioning that requires
| a face shield in your home?
|
| In a medical setting, shields are typically used in
| conjunction with eye goggles and respirators when
| performing procedures that have a tendency to cause or be
| around splashing body fluids. Outside of someone sneezing
| or spitting on you directly, I can't think of an
| analogous situation that I come into on even a rare
| circumstance that a face shield would protect me from.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| 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.
| mbreese wrote:
| That isn't what a face shield is for and it won't protect
| you in that scenario.
| [deleted]
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| It's the same mentality as people buying guns.
|
| What situation that could conceivably arise from a
| pandemic requires an automatic rifle?
|
| It's a generalised sense of "bad things are happening, I
| need to be prepared for bad things to happen to me".
| [deleted]
| electricviolet wrote:
| The harm right now is that there's not even enough PPE
| for hospitals, so anyone buying a face shield for
| themselves, if that were possible, would keep a face
| shields from going to a health worker who needs it more.
|
| A couple months from now, when pressure on the healthcare
| system is lower and manufacturing capacity is ramped up?
| Sure, I'm all for it.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| That is a completely different situation from what I'm
| discussing.
|
| I'm not talking about who should get priority for PPE
| right now. I'm just talking about the idea of the general
| public having a couple uses worth of PPE just in case. Is
| now the right time for them to prioritize buying PPE for
| themselves over hospital workers? No.
| taxidump wrote:
| I printed my own frame and cut the shield a large plastic
| piece from a leftover toy package.
|
| That being said, if I owned a commercial face mask, I
| would not feel bad. Hording/gouging is not equal to
| owning your own set of PPE.
| frogpelt wrote:
| "We all assume the government is going to make sure the
| food supply is maintained"
|
| Do you assume this? I assume that capitalism is keeping
| the food supply maintained. When that fails, I think
| we're up the creek.
| nicbou wrote:
| The government already has its hand in the food supply
| with all the farming subsidies it hands out. It can
| either change the subsidies to match the situation, or
| get heavily involved into the resource allocation as it
| has done in wartime.
|
| As a good example, European agriculture is currently
| threatened because there are no foreign workers in the
| fields. The German government responded by better
| connecting unemployed workers to local farms, and by
| changing the rules to allow some foreign workers to come
| in.
|
| That's just a hint of what governments are capable of. It
| pales in comparison to a war economy.
| gwright wrote:
| 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 <insert-critical-item-here> 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.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| > disposable
|
| This is reusable, easy to sterilize w alcohol.
| GoodOldNe wrote:
| Pedantic point: If you're intubation the esophagus,
| you're doing it wrong. :-)
| megablast wrote:
| 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.
| Uehreka wrote:
| That line of thinking would've made sense a year ago, but
| the problem now is that "the unexpected happened". Now
| even things that cost $1-5 to manufacture can't be
| manufactured fast enough to meet demand (which is
| probably something like 100 million to 1 billion masks).
| If we can't get PPE to all of the healthcare workers or
| even most of them (and right now we can't) then there's
| no way they should go to the general public.
| Myce wrote:
| 100 million or a billion look a lot in normal
| circumstances. But currently the global demand is
| probably your numbers times 100.
|
| Here, in the Netherlands we heard they need 4 million
| facemasks a week. And we're a very small country!
| lostlogin wrote:
| Seeing people touching their masks continually while
| wearing gloves and using a phone is depressing.
| djrogers wrote:
| 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.
| DanBC wrote:
| > Touching one's mask is infinitely better than the
| alternative of touching one's face,
|
| No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated and
| now your fingers are contaminated.
|
| > and in the case of a non-symptomatic individual wearing
| a mask to reduce outbound infectious particles has no
| bearing at all.
|
| No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated
| because those masks are not impermeable and the virus
| does penetrate it, and so now that persons fingers are
| contaminated and they contaminate other surfaces.
|
| > The whole 'masks are too hard to use'
|
| So far _every_ single video I 've seen of people who
| aren't HCPs wearing PPE has shown them make mistakes that
| lead to contamination.
|
| "Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20
| seconds; don't touch your face" is much simpler than the
| protocols for donning and doffing gloves and mask.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Yes, but touching a dried droplet is much less likely to
| lead to infection than inhaling one.
| lonelappde wrote:
| Both of those things seem just as hard as managing a
| mask. People are crap at handwashing, and face touching
| is subconscious.
| MattRix wrote:
| You inadvertently touch your face way more often when
| wearing a mask, that much is pretty obvious. You also are
| more likely to be more confident about your safety and
| behave in a slightly more risky way. Kind of like how
| cars drive closer to bikers with helmets than bikers
| without them.
| Tagbert wrote:
| When I am out and about, I assume that my fingers are
| contaminated. When I get to my car, I always do a cleanup
| down with an alchohol wipe and when I get home, do the
| ABC wash of my hands and face.
|
| Still, wearing the mask is a constant reminder not to
| touch my face. some people will still ignore that
| reminder but not everyone is going to follow the rules
| 100%.
| SamBam wrote:
| > No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated and
| now your fingers are contaminated.
|
| My understanding is that that's a misunderstanding (one
| that I was under as well).
|
| For people who aren't sick, the worry is that your hands
| get contaminated (much more common, from surface
| contact), and then you touch your mask and transfer to
| the mask, and eventually it works its way in since these
| aren't N95s.
|
| i.e. it ends up being the same as hand-mouth contact, but
| people think the mask is keeping them safe from that.
| DanBC wrote:
| Yes, you're right. That first point was about the DIY
| cotton masks, not fluid resistant surgical masks.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _No, because the outside of the mask is contaminated
| and now your fingers are contaminated._
|
| What's the alternative? That your face is contaminated?
| mbreese wrote:
| > 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, then you
| are at risk. Using them right requires proper equipment,
| sizing, testing, etc... And getting people properly fit,
| etc was not something that was remotely practical for the
| general public. That's not to mention the materials
| used... properly protecting masks have to be made of
| high-quality and consistent fibers.
|
| The current recommendations for wearing masks is _not_ to
| protect the wearer of the mask. It is to protect other
| people. If you take it as a given that there is
| widespread asymptomatic cases of the virus, then you don
| 't know if you have it or not. So wearing a mask is to
| protect other people from you. If you are wearing a mask,
| any virus that you happen to shed will be trapped as you
| exhale, or at least not be able to travel very far.
|
| Unfortunately, any help that wearing a mask would offer
| to the wearer is often countered by the false sense of
| security that they bring. There are many people in masks
| that think they are protected so they can ignore keeping
| their distance from others. This is 100% wrong.
|
| The best way to avoid germs from other people is to
| distance yourself from other people.
| gruez wrote:
| >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)
| GordonS wrote:
| 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).
| fspeech wrote:
| 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...
| dx87 wrote:
| 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.
| sailfast wrote:
| I'd like to leave my house in a month or two. You?
| jacksnipe wrote:
| 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.
| kojeovo wrote:
| Right but that still doesn't seem like a good enough
| reason for Apple to start selling these publicly.
| zaroth wrote:
| Why unfortunately? I'd say it's quite fortunate that
| grocery stores and gas stations are still operational.
| samename wrote:
| It's unfortunate because these people are having to put
| their lives at risk, unexpectedly. They didn't ask to be
| on the frontlines. In addition, many of them haven't been
| able to get hazard pay or adequate sick pay.
| vkou wrote:
| > 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.
| mbreese wrote:
| That isn't what that sentence means...
|
| Think of it like a squirt gun. If someone is spraying a
| squirt gun at you, a mask will protect you a bit, but it
| eventually will be saturated and you'll be wet. However,
| if you have a face shield, the water will just roll off.
|
| Masks are better at protecting you from small particles.
| Using a face shield without a mask would do you
| absolutely no good when you're trying to protect yourself
| from an airborne pathogen or micro-droplets. When you
| breathe, you're going to draw in air from around the
| sides of the shield.
|
| If you have a mask (N95), then you're breathing air in
| through the filtering fibers of the mask. This is what
| protects you.
|
| Masks and face shields have two very different purposes.
| aledalgrande wrote:
| Masks are more effective at preventing spread from
| untested, asymptomatic infected people though.
| samatman wrote:
| The general public includes about a hundred thousand people
| whose job puts them in touch with everyone: mostly checkout
| clerks.
|
| They are at great risk for infection and for being vectors
| of infection, and are performing an essential service.
|
| These face masks are a great piece of technology for them:
| effective, reusable, and comfortable enough to wear for a
| full shift.
| tiredwired wrote:
| Lots of medical people telling general public they do not
| need PPE and then they wonder why the hospitals are full of
| sick people.
|
| edit: go ahead and downvote you losers. nobody cares.
| docbrown wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand this argument. Are you speaking
| of sick people coming into the hospital during this
| pandemic or overall? Because I can ensure you, many
| hospitalizations are not due to a lack of PPE. Broken
| hips are not caused by a lack of PPE; myocardial
| infractions are not caused by a lack of wearing gloves;
| nor is a person falling into a diabetic comma caused by
| not wearing PPE.
|
| But, if you're talking about during this pandemic, it was
| inherently clear that there was a lack of supplies to
| begin with and panic buying/hoarding would not help the
| situation. Now don't get me wrong, I am not condoning the
| actions of any government--I feel as if they did drop the
| ball--but there was a dire need of any available PPE to
| be given priority to first responders and frontline
| healthcare workers. When you're physician gets ill and
| eventually passes, that PT load is now given to another
| physician who is putting their life on the life. We need
| to protect those on the frontlines who are protecting us
| or else there will be nobody left.
| nakkijono wrote:
| People were told face masks don't work by the officials.
| This actively harmful lie was propagated since they
| wanted to save the PPE for health care workers. The
| problem with this approach is that one asymptotic/mild
| cashier can undo the work of a thousand health care
| workers.
| senderista wrote:
| It also fostered distrust among anyone able to see the
| elementary contradictions in their arguments.
| tiredwired wrote:
| People are making their own masks. There is no shortage
| of DIY masks. They have always been able to do that but,
| medical people and government leaders waited months in
| the USA to tell them to do that. Other countries already
| proved that wearing masks all the time helped protect
| you.
|
| Medical people are telling the public not to wear gloves.
| The reasons they give and examples are detached from
| reality. There is a video going around on Facebook where
| a nurse acts like paint accurately represents cross-
| contamination. No consideration for material properties
| or other types of gloves.
| senderista wrote:
| This. If you change your gloves whenever you would
| normally wash your hands, then I fail to see why cross-
| contamination risk would be any higher with gloves.
| alexbanks wrote:
| Hospitals are full of sick people because they didn't
| listen to all the other advice, like social distancing +
| handwashing + this isn't a vacation.
| m0zg wrote:
| I do hope to buy a box of N100 masks when this is over. I
| strongly suspect I'm not alone.
| awaythrower wrote:
| Your opinion is for you alone, doctor keyboard. Declaring
| what other people should do is supremely arrogant.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| cameldrv wrote:
| Over 1000 people in America are dying every day of this
| disease. This thing costs probably $2 and likely provides
| significant protection.
|
| About 100 people in America die per day from motor vehicle
| accidents. Next I suppose you're going to tell me that the
| extra $50 it costs to install a seatbelt in my car is a
| waste of materials, time, and money too, right?
| alexbanks wrote:
| I think it's more that these would be a pretty involved
| overstep for regular people to be walking around in.
| Social distancing + hand washing + a homemade cloth mask
| is sufficient for regular people. For the same reasons
| that regular people don't need/shouldn't be wearing N95
| masks everywhere, nor should these.
| cameldrv wrote:
| 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 hold this belief is frankly astonishing.
| alexbanks wrote:
| 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.
| cameldrv wrote:
| 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.
| alexbanks wrote:
| It feels as though arguments will be received with claims
| of "mental gymnastics", so I will just point out the
| differences in use and function between a face shield and
| an N95 mask. You're free to try and purchase a face
| shield if you'd like.
|
| Best of luck.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Your question was about the effectiveness of N95 masks.
| Hopefully I've resolved that for you. As for the
| effectiveness of face shields, I don't have data on that,
| I just said it was likely to be effective, since it
| blocks larger droplets from hitting your face or being
| inhaled.
|
| There's no luck involved, I purchased a face shield
| almost two months ago, although I usually just wear
| mask+goggles, gloves if necessary when I need to go out.
| The face shield is for if one of our family members gets
| sick and we need to care for each other. Then it will be
| mask+goggles+gloves+gown+face shield.
| alexbanks wrote:
| My question was not about the effectiveness of N95 masks
| in a vacuum, it was correcting your assertion that the
| people that have died in the hospital, did so because
| they didn't wear N95 masks. It is possible to wear an N95
| mask incorrectly, or to contaminate yourself during the
| putting on/taking off process. The idea that N95 masks
| inherently make you immune to exposure is ridiculous. The
| people that died in the hospital could've very well worn
| N95 masks and still been exposed.
|
| I also believe you're more naive than I originally
| thought. I think you need luck now more than ever.
| cameldrv wrote:
| I think it's pretty simple. If you don't get the virus,
| you don't go to the hospital or die in the hospital. If
| you wear an N95 mask, according to the best data
| available, you have a 91% smaller chance of catching the
| virus.
|
| Yes, it's possible to make mistakes donning and duffing.
| However, that same meta-analysis also showed a large
| benefit for community use of masks, so actual use, not
| perfect use. To the extent that there is a problem with
| improper use, we should be teaching people how to use
| them instead of telling people not to wear them.
|
| I never said wearing a mask made you immune. Seatbelts
| don't eliminate your risk either, but at this point only
| very backwards people drive a car without one.
|
| BTW, as of today, COVID is the leading cause of death in
| America.
| alexbanks wrote:
| > I think it's pretty simple
|
| Stopped reading after this. It's not.
| [deleted]
| mike_d wrote:
| These face shields are intended as an alternative to eye
| protection that is in short supply. They do nothing for
| respiratory protection. Infection via the eyes is
| primarily a concern for people interacting closely with
| contagious patients (i.e. healthcare workers).
|
| To answer your seemingly underlying question: no, if
| Apple gave you a face shield it doesn't mean you get to
| go outside.
| cameldrv wrote:
| If no one is going outside, how are there any new cases?
| Lots of people are "essential workers", they go to the
| grocery store, the pharmacy, etc.
|
| Yes, HCW exposure is much greater than the average
| person, but your argument is essentially: Since you
| aren't driving in a Formula 1 race where the risk of
| crashing is higher, there's no need to wear a seatbelt.
|
| When we're seeing hundreds of deaths per year from COVID,
| I'll agree with you, but currently, HCW or no, COVID is
| one of the biggest threats to your life, and you'd be an
| idiot to go outside without the best protection you can
| get your hands on.
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| Face shields are to protect against body fluid splatter
| during invasive bodily procedures and while closely
| treating patients with explosive coughing fits. Even
| doctors in hospitals treating Covid-19 patients don't
| wear them outside those types of circumstances. There is
| no need for the general public to wear them. It's not
| like fitting your car with a seat belt, it's like fitting
| it with an ejector seat.
| cameldrv wrote:
| So your argument is that the risk to the average American
| is low from COVID? Why do we have 300,000 cases then? Why
| are 1000 people dying a day? That's already 0.1% of the
| population, and most of them in the past week!
| Beltiras wrote:
| Lack of testing and a laggard&lackluster response by
| authorities. USA will be one of the hardest hit countries
| in the world. There's still no stay-at-home order. Trump
| wants to reduce what little is being done after Easter.
| That's going to make the situation considerably worse.
| cameldrv wrote:
| All true, but even with stay at home orders, not everyone
| stays home. Some people are essential workers and have to
| go to work. Other people go out for exercise, grocery
| shopping, etc. If those people have protective equipment
| available it is truly senseless to not wear it given the
| extreme danger.
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| If time was of the essence for car production and we
| needed to decide if ambulances or regular cars get
| seatbelts first, then yes, we'd give them to ambulances.
| cameldrv wrote:
| I'm not suggesting that priority should not be given to
| HCWs or other high risk people like grocery store
| employees, but at $2 each, this is something everyone
| should be wearing as soon as we have enough of 'em.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| 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?
| dwighttk wrote:
| Would just take 6.3 years at current rate of production to
| make that many.
|
| Unless my math is wrong: 330M/52
| seeTheAstroturf wrote:
| >feedback from doctors was very positive
|
| If it didn't work, they would say the same thing.
|
| Source- first years of butterfly keyboard
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I actually quite like the butterfly keyboard and have never
| had a problem with it. I'm using a MacBook 16 inch keyboard
| and I'm finding I am extremely used to the butterfly style
| keyboard.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The 16 inch switched back to a scissor mechanism.
|
| I do like the butterfly keys though, it's only the
| reliability issues that make them problematic for me. Until
| keys started being flaky I was perfectly happy with it.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Ah sorry my comment is ambiguous; I'm saying I 100%
| prefer butterfly keys over the new 16 inch keyboard. I'm
| sure I'll get used to it though.
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Gotcha. I do like typing on the butterfly keyboard. It's
| just problematic that keys will randomly not respond or
| send multiple strokes, and can't be fixed short of taking
| the entire computer apart.
| smsx wrote:
| I believe he's contrasting his current 16" experience vs
| the older butterfly switches.
| product50 wrote:
| lets pick one negative example and generalize that. this is
| because apple has never really shipped good products.
| Munky-Necan wrote:
| So you're saying that four years from now they will have the
| "updated" design implemented
| arized wrote:
| > manufacturing in the US and China
|
| Mixed feelings about this. What happened to the reports that
| Apple suppliers were essentially using slave labour to build
| their products in China? I didn't see any response at all from
| them - do they care?
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-ip...
| zepto wrote:
| Pretty much applies to anyone who uses factories in China.
|
| I'm not saying it's not a problem, but it's not an Apple
| problem. It's a doing business with China problem.
| cheez wrote:
| I'd be more concerned about Chinese suppliers who have
| privately said they would supply faulty equipment related to
| corona virus to the US.
| arized wrote:
| Really? I would consider unchallenged, systemic slavery to
| be a fairly important problem. Not something to be
| dismissed as less concerning than another critical issue. I
| am just surprised by the complete lack of news.
|
| How many people do we think would choose not to buy a
| smartphone made in China this year, if they knew the supply
| chain used slavery. Sadly, I don't think people care - as
| long as they get the latest iPhone... (maybe why I am being
| downvoted?)
| rediguanayum wrote:
| Is there an Apple contact for medical providers to make requests
| to?
| mike_d wrote:
| faceshield@apple.com
| rediguanayum wrote:
| Thanks. Request sent.
| blhack wrote:
| 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 approved design incorporated a top
| cover: https://3dprint.nih.gov/discover/3dpx-013359
|
| This was at great expense to efficiency of printing, but it was
| something that was required for approval.
| [deleted]
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Good on them for helping fight the problem, but there's
| definitely a dystopian sci-fi trope of a familiar brand creating
| products that only exist because the world is in a disaster.
|
| Sort of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4lS9poHvpU
| op03 wrote:
| Of the superficial. By the superficial. For superficial.
| Unconscious of their mantra Apple is. And that ignorance is
| bliss.
| [deleted]
| pell wrote:
| Oh wow.
| fitzroy wrote:
| Apple Releases Unaugmented Reality Headset
|
| Analysts criticize lack of ports, launch titles, developer
| support.
| insomniacity wrote:
| I'm a developer, and I strongly support this :D
| tartrate wrote:
| The best thing to happen to the face since glasses.
| handedness wrote:
| And just like that, masks without continuous corners look
| so...downmarket.
| haunter wrote:
| I'd love to watch an Apple reality distortion field presentation
| of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7v815bYUw
| mrgrieves wrote:
| This design is open-top. That allows sneezed droplets to fall in
| pretty easily. Whether or not that's a problem will vary by
| hospital, but some of them simply tape up the gap.
|
| Aside from that, it's pretty nice.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I don't know if you are aware, but in the healthcare world
| there is an expected difference between, for instance, a
| surgical mask used in operating rooms, and face shields used in
| facilities for procedures like intubation.
|
| This is intended to be a face shield. I'm sure Apple could make
| surgical masks? But that's not the most acute supply need at
| the moment.
| kbaker wrote:
| No, they are talking about a top cover like in the NIH-
| approved design:
|
| https://3dprint.nih.gov/discover/3dpx-013359
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Available for just $199 in 7 countries, rollout to 19 more
| countries on April, 25
| adwi wrote:
| They made 20,000,000 of them already and they're free. I assume
| you're joking but they're trying to save lives and I don't see
| the need for negativity around this.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/04/apple-will-battle-co...
| 101404 wrote:
| Because humor is "negativity".
|
| Maybe don't make people feel worse. Thank you.
| adwi wrote:
| "Tragedy plus time" is the standard formula in that vein of
| humor.
|
| Let's give the victims time to succumb and their families
| time to grieve before breaking out the glib cynicism toward
| other peoples' lifesaving actions.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Maybe humor isn't negative, but I don't see how a
| misleading "joke" is a worthy comment. If you just want to
| make empty and meaningless jokes, perhaps there is a better
| forum for it.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I believe there is a better forum for virtue signaling,
| too.
| netsharc wrote:
| Customize with different color straps, $49 each!
| mordfustang21 wrote:
| You're gonna love it!
| [deleted]
| arkanciscan wrote:
| How much will these sell for on eBay in 10+ years?
| 762236 wrote:
| Where they describe how to sterilize it: DO NOT mix those
| chemicals together (e.g., bleach + rubbing alcohol = chloroform).
| Loughla wrote:
| And while we're here, let's go ahead and get these others out
| for people to read:
|
| Bleach+vinegar = chlorine gas, Bleach+ammonia = chloramine,
| Bleach+rubbing alcohol = chloroform
|
| Just don't mix bleach with anything.
|
| And while we're at it, don't mix hydrogen peroxide and vinegar,
| either.
| jedberg wrote:
| You need to add an extra newline at the end of each equation
| so it doesn't run all on one line. Like this:
|
| Bleach+vinegar = chlorine gas
|
| Bleach+ammonia = chloramine
|
| Bleach+rubbing alcohol = chloroform
| Loughla wrote:
| I like longer sentence structures and lists of connected
| items in that format. It's less blocky and easier for my
| brain to process connected items. I put commas in now for
| other humans.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Or bleach + diet coke + mentos.
| jhweoiru wrote:
| Or to be even more generic, never mix a cleaning/disinfecting
| product with anything else.
| sirtimbly wrote:
| There goes my childhood entertainment.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| At least they didn't warn against the dangers of holding
| a match in front of a can of WD-40.
| mark-r wrote:
| Once I used some WD-40 sprayed on a paper towel to
| lubricate a retracting car antenna. When I touched the
| antenna I got a static electric shock, and the paper
| towel burst into flames in my hand. Good times.
| lonelappde wrote:
| Peroxide + vinegar should not be poured together. They are
| safe ONLY in dilute concentrations like spraying a bit of
| each onto a surface and then wiping. https://www.goodhousekee
| ping.com/home/cleaning/tips/a32773/c...
| csours wrote:
| And before anyone gets big ideas about the chloroform, it is
| not pure chloroform; it is generally contaminated by
| phosgene, which is truly terrible stuff.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| During a wasted youth I poured over hundreds of The Hardy
| Boys Casefiles, where they'd receive and recover from a
| traumatic brain injury 3-5 nights a week (getting "knocked
| out").
|
| Thanks to your comment I now know the other nights, where
| they were not rendered unconscious by blunt trauma, but
| rather through a rag of chloroform, they were probably
| inhaling phosgene too.
|
| Those boys were sure putting their futures at risk!
| csours wrote:
| Hah, same. Between The Hardy Boys and silly TV crime
| dramas I think a lot of kids got the wrong impression
| about getting "knocked out". It turns out that pretty
| much anything that can cause unconsciousness is also
| likely to cause death or serious permanent injury.
| cakoose wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1468/ "Worrying"
| Avamander wrote:
| It is a bit sad that so many people miss or forget these
| important lessons in HS chemistry :P
| bragh wrote:
| Wasn't even told that about those things in HS chemistry in
| my time in my country, not sure why - considered too
| dangerous knowledge by educators? Only found out about it
| on 4chan and gasped on how easily we could have
| accidentally injured ourselves while cleaning our dorm
| bathroom.
| Avamander wrote:
| I really don't know how any chemistry can be taught
| without teaching metal + base reactions, or without
| teaching salt + acid reactions. I really really don't
| think your educators missed the rules that make it
| possible to know what happens when you mix foil with pipe
| cleaner or bleach with vinegar, they might've just not
| mentioned the very specific reactions and you failed to
| generalize.
| Loughla wrote:
| I learned about these from the book "A Child Called It".
| When the abusive parent uses the bleach+ammonia mixture
| on him.
|
| Then I tried to figure out what else bleach could do.
| This is not a healthy line of experimenting for a dumb 17
| year old.
|
| I 100% believe HS chem should teach this. Then at least
| you know what not to do.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Isn't it very clearly printed on the bottle in your
| country?
|
| Here (I assume this is an EU regulation) it says
| "WARNING! Do not use together with other products. May
| release dangerous gases (chlorine)."
| kube-system wrote:
| Here's a couple of typical labels in the US:
|
| https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2025dfde-c877-4043-b91d-
| 978...
|
| https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/05122787-1991-4084-869e-
| 755...
| Symbiote wrote:
| Here's an EU (UK/Ireland so it's English) one:
|
| https://images-na.ssl-images-
| amazon.com/images/I/81nqrPdi1nL...
|
| There are almost 200 pages of EU rules and guidance in
| the first document [bottom of 1], and some hundreds more
| pages in related sections of that site.
|
| That said, the cheap-brand bleach in my cupboard has a
| word-for-word translation into Danish of the English
| text, and a consistent layout, and there's some merit in
| that.
|
| [1] https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/clp/labelling
| snazz wrote:
| The "DO NOT use or mix with other household chemicals,
| such as..." part should probably go on the front and a
| little bigger. I can't imagine that everyone would read
| the whole thing.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's okay, because they pointed out that it's a violation
| of federal law to use the product in a way inconsistent
| with the labeling.
|
| Checkmate people who don't read the label.
| TheSoftwareGuy wrote:
| interesting, that's a new one I didn't know about. I've always
| heard the Bleach + Ammonia = Mustard gas, but not that one
| mys_721tx wrote:
| Bleach breaks down to chlorine, which in turn reacts with
| ammonia to form chloramine. Mustard gas has sulfur and cannot
| be synthesized this way.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Chlorine based bleach is just one of the things that has
| the label "Bleach" in your household cleaning aisle.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach#Classes_of_bleaches
| mys_721tx wrote:
| The only sulfur containing bleaches in that list are
| potassium persulfate and sodium hydrosulfite. Neither
| contains chlorine.
|
| Furthermore, the synthesis of mustard gas is non-trivial.
| Those two chemicals are not enough to put the sulfur on a
| carbon chain.
| phyzome wrote:
| If you mix bleach with just about any other cleaning
| chemical, you get chlorine gas, or chloroform, or some other
| nasty chlorine-based poisonous fumes.
|
| (though not mustard gas)
| xmmrm wrote:
| Yeah, they should drop bleach from that list. It degrades the
| shield and it might just do more harm than good.
| rchaud wrote:
| The markup of the page has the following:
|
| <meta name="robots" content="NOINDEX, FOLLOW" />
|
| So the page was made available for the intended customers
| only, healthcare workers who likely know how to properly use
| bleach to clean it. This page won't be indexed by search
| engines.
|
| Ironically, because it was posted on HN, it will appear, but
| as a link inside of an HN story.
| hinkley wrote:
| Oh boy. Haven't they been recommending a mix of bleach and
| rubbing alcohol for like a month?
| lonelappde wrote:
| No?
|
| They who?
| jshevek wrote:
| Independently, not together.
| [deleted]
| giarc wrote:
| As an FYI, those methods do not result in sterilization.
| Sterilization techniques must meet specific parameters.
| hogFeast wrote:
| Presumably this costs $500, the plastic shield is a $200 add-on
| with tints or upgrades (so that the product actually works) are
| another $200.
|
| And when it breaks later that day you go into an Apple store and
| they give you some bull about the plastic warping and you have to
| buy another one.
| ericzawo wrote:
| I would love, love, love to read the internal debate Apple's
| marketing team had around calling it "the Faceshield" as opposed
| to invoking first person "Faceshield" much like how they always
| refer to it as "iPhone" not "an iPhone."
| joncrane wrote:
| It would be great if they could make face shields that are
| dishwasher safe.
| pwthornton wrote:
| Is there any plastic that is actually dishwasher safe? I
| thought just about all of it started leaching when exposed to
| high temperatures.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Is Melmac considered plastic? I have Melmac plates.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| "Dishwasher safe" means won't deform in scalding water and
| steam.
| q3k wrote:
| Polycarbonate. It's used for reusable glass-like transparent
| plastic cups.
| donatj wrote:
| The inside of my dishwasher is made out of plastic, so I'd
| assume there'd have to be.
| pwthornton wrote:
| I don't think the actual racks are plastic.
|
| Specifically, all the recommendations I have seen are that
| you should not microweave or put in the dishwasher plastic
| containers. That's for food, so you can see where the
| leaching concerns would be.
|
| But I wonder for this if part of it is that it has such
| close proximity to a lot of your face.
| donatj wrote:
| No, but the walls are.
| pwthornton wrote:
| The walls are but the walls don't directly touch anything
| in there to directly leach. Also, a lot of dishwashers
| have metal tubs, and this is probably a big reason why.
| beders wrote:
| Once you leave your apple politics behind, you could show some
| admiration for the site itself:
|
| Clear instructions, kick-ass animations.
|
| I'd love to be able to afford support sites like this one.
| ProAm wrote:
| Of course it's got no headphone jack.
| arkanciscan wrote:
| I hear it's only compatible with AAPL brand stethescopes too!
| antipaul wrote:
| This is impressive, compared to what traditional health companies
| like Pharma are doing.
|
| The latter seem mostly to update existing products like faster
| tests or trying to develop vaccines.
|
| Whereas it's the tech companies which are going a bit beyond
| their traditional business: Apple making face masks, Google and
| Apple making screening websites (other examples?)
|
| All of which could be done by traditional health companies, but
| unfortunately innovation is not their strength. Need to be
| disrupted!
|
| And no surprise from Apple, since Tim Cook has said before:
| "Apple's biggest contribution to mankind will be in healthcare"
| and they are doing a lot more than these face masks.
| [deleted]
| arcticfox wrote:
| A piece of plastic and headband is impressive compared to
| "remarkable", "game-changing" (in the words of UW biology
| professor) 5-13 minute isothermal RNA amplification tests?
|
| https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1246567798697889792
| ethanbond wrote:
| Really?
|
| Masks don't get us out of this crisis. The billions-fold more
| complex work of developing effective treatments and vaccines
| does.
|
| What an odd sentiment you've got here.
| antipaul wrote:
| Thanks all for the input, it helps. I didn't mean to downplay
| anyone's contributions. Just looking at how big companies in
| tech vs in healthcare are solving this. Of course, smaller
| players innovate on a different scale. Cheers!
| [deleted]
| viklove wrote:
| What a delusional perspective
| tlrobinson wrote:
| Are face shields actually the best we can/should do? Most of the
| photos of doctors in Wuhan I saw had them wearing goggles:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=wuhan+doctors&tbm=isch
| leipert wrote:
| Faceshields are easier to mass produce I assume. Goggles are
| hard to come by.
| aloknnikhil wrote:
| I was hoping they would stamp the Apple Care logo on these. Kudos
| to Apple for shipping these out so quickly at such scale.
| goblin89 wrote:
| Adafruit has developed some nice (and cheap) plastic face
| shields, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7eIZHqiK4&t=295s
| fanfanatic wrote:
| But when will Apple have the courage to remove the shield from
| the faceahield?
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Cool, now can we can an Apple designed pill?
| https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6391/915
|
| About the size of an Airpod stem. Thank you!
| peterchane wrote:
| EyeMask
| mjmasn wrote:
| I just can't believe they missed the obvious 'iShield' (ie eye
| shield) name... or maybe that didn't get past the PR department.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Seems to have already been taken by a nearly-identical product:
|
| https://pac-dent.com/products/infection-control/ishield-disp...
| itake wrote:
| "i" was Steve Job's thing and that era is over. Don't expect to
| see that again.
| exabrial wrote:
| iDoubt they'll be renaming the iPhone anytime soon
| what_ever wrote:
| They are not naming any new thing as iSomething.
| rgovostes wrote:
| The correct title should be "Face Shield" but in 6 months they'll
| retroactively change all references to be stylized "faceShield".
| rq1 wrote:
| Do you need an Apple Care subscription to get one?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-07 23:00 UTC)