17 ms·

> 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

> 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.

epicureanideal 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - ribs 6y ago
    Yeah but he said face shield
  - DennisP 6y ago
    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.
  - sigstoat 6y ago
    > 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.
- Uehreka 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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!
- uxp 6y ago
  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.
  - catblast 6y ago
    > 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.
  - zbrozek 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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.
- megablast 6y ago
  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.
  - brodie 6y ago
    The majority of the replies from non-medical professionals here on this supposedly intelligent forum perfectly illustrates why that happens. People think they can tackle any problem and come to the correct conclusion with a minute of thinking alone, with no real knowledge or experience or testing. Now extrapolate that to the entire US or world and it is sadly not surprising that people think they know best and doctors and nurses and patients be damned.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Staying at home and limiting spread is the most effective way to help professionals. PPE helps limit spread. The trick is to buy stuff which doesn't take away from doctors. Cotton masks. Face shields. Etc. In contrast to nonwoven fabric, a toy factory can produce a billion face shields if you want it to. You can but them online for a buck (in quantities of 10). It ain't taking away from anyone.
- beerandt 6y ago
  If you're not fitted and trained on the PPE you're using, it's more likely to cause harm than to provide any protection. If not direct harm, then by providing a false sense of security. You need to not only know how to use PPE, but know what it's limitations are, and what it's designed to actually protect you from. Wearing a shield thinking it provides any protection from an aerosolized virus is a perfect example of having the wrong expectations from a piece of equipment.
- inamberclad 6y ago
  These don't look like 'normal' face shields that you'd find in a woodworking shop. They're just splash guards, won't stop anything remotely solid that's flying.
- harikb 6y ago
  Regular people should not use non-reusable anything. Just because I can spare $100 doesn’t mean I get to trash the earth with disposable junk. Make reusable/washable masks and then I don’t care if people cover their face or behind with it. Masks do help - for allergies, dust, and other things. I do wear a bandana while running because it helps with allergy. Only because I don’t want to risk another lung issue while also being in risk for covid.
lostlogin 6y ago
Seeing people touching their masks continually while wearing gloves and using a phone is depressing.
- djrogers 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    > 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.
    - lonelappde 6y ago
      Both of those things seem just as hard as managing a mask. People are crap at handwashing, and face touching is subconscious.
      - MattRix 6y ago
        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.
tiredwired 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - tiredwired 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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.
cameldrv 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/ 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.
fspeech 6y ago
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/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...
- dx87 6y ago
  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.
  - jacksnipe 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      Right but that still doesn't seem like a good enough reason for Apple to start selling these publicly.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Why unfortunately? I'd say it's quite fortunate that grocery stores and gas stations are still operational.
      - samename 6y ago
        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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sailfast 6y ago
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?
- brodie 6y ago
  They don’t reduce risk of infection in day to day situations. They’re specialized medical tools used in appropriate situations. Also, please put on a mask and leave your house. You aren’t on permanent curfew. Do some essential activities each day.
  - sailfast 6y ago
    Of course I put on a mask, and I rarely leave the house. I was not aware they were not helpful when generally interacting with others - obviously then I wouldn’t want to wear one.
m0zg 6y ago
I do hope to buy a box of N100 masks when this is over. I strongly suspect I'm not alone.
coldtea 6y ago
>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. Mostly time given current priorities -- given that we've spent 100000x the materials and money buying every kind of disposable plastic crap every year for no reason at all...
samatman 6y ago
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.
- Talanes 6y ago
  It's very simple to just put up a full shield between the clerk and the customers, you don't need to strap the shield to people's faces when there's a static point of contact.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    This has the benefit of preventing you from touching your face after touching things customers have touched.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      If you're a retail worker and you haven't trained yourself to not touch your face while in work mode, I don't know what to tell you. Be better?
      - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
        Or to wear protective gear that costs basically nothing. Not touching your face at all is extremely difficult where as wearing a mask is very simple. Why suggest very difficult measures when very simple ones work better.
  - brodie 6y ago
    I had to go to the hospital today for a follow up X-ray after a month long life threatening illness. Every single desk and checkpoint inside either had the glass windows slightly cracked open but essentially closed, or they were draped in plastic covers. My pharmacy also did the same thing.
awaythrower 6y ago
Your opinion is for you alone, doctor keyboard. Declaring what other people should do is supremely arrogant.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  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.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
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?
- amalcon 6y ago
  That strong suggestion is so that a person with the virus will be wearing the mask, and therefore less likely to infect other people. That type of mask is more or less useless for protecting its wearer; its purpose is to protect everyone else.
woofie11 6y ago
Yes. In January and February, we were "meant to" all keep traveling, spending, going to conferences, and parades. I'm not sure how a passive "meant to" helps. And we were all "meant to" not wear face masks, until just now. These things are common sense. If you don't believe a face shield will help, why bother sneezing in your elbow? We have three modes of potential transmission: 1) Large droplets, where face shields increase the effective distance from others. 2) Contact, where faceshield prevent you from accidentally touching your face. 3) Aerosol, where faceshields don't do a thing. But reducing 2 out of 3 modes of transmission for a buck or two makes complete sense.

epicureanideal 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
- ribs 6y ago
  Yeah but he said face shield
- DennisP 6y ago
  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.
- sigstoat 6y ago
  > 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.
Uehreka 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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!
uxp 6y ago
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.
- catblast 6y ago
  > 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.
- zbrozek 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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.
megablast 6y ago
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.
- brodie 6y ago
  The majority of the replies from non-medical professionals here on this supposedly intelligent forum perfectly illustrates why that happens. People think they can tackle any problem and come to the correct conclusion with a minute of thinking alone, with no real knowledge or experience or testing. Now extrapolate that to the entire US or world and it is sadly not surprising that people think they know best and doctors and nurses and patients be damned.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Staying at home and limiting spread is the most effective way to help professionals. PPE helps limit spread. The trick is to buy stuff which doesn't take away from doctors. Cotton masks. Face shields. Etc. In contrast to nonwoven fabric, a toy factory can produce a billion face shields if you want it to. You can but them online for a buck (in quantities of 10). It ain't taking away from anyone.
beerandt 6y ago
If you're not fitted and trained on the PPE you're using, it's more likely to cause harm than to provide any protection. If not direct harm, then by providing a false sense of security. You need to not only know how to use PPE, but know what it's limitations are, and what it's designed to actually protect you from. Wearing a shield thinking it provides any protection from an aerosolized virus is a perfect example of having the wrong expectations from a piece of equipment.
inamberclad 6y ago
These don't look like 'normal' face shields that you'd find in a woodworking shop. They're just splash guards, won't stop anything remotely solid that's flying.
harikb 6y ago
Regular people should not use non-reusable anything. Just because I can spare $100 doesn’t mean I get to trash the earth with disposable junk. Make reusable/washable masks and then I don’t care if people cover their face or behind with it. Masks do help - for allergies, dust, and other things. I do wear a bandana while running because it helps with allergy. Only because I don’t want to risk another lung issue while also being in risk for covid.

lostlogin 6y ago

Seeing people touching their masks continually while wearing gloves and using a phone is depressing.

djrogers 6y ago
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 6y ago
  > 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.
  - lonelappde 6y ago
    Both of those things seem just as hard as managing a mask. People are crap at handwashing, and face touching is subconscious.
    - MattRix 6y ago
      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.

tiredwired 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
- tiredwired 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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.

cameldrv 6y ago

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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/ 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.

fspeech 6y ago

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/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...

dx87 6y ago
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.
- jacksnipe 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    Right but that still doesn't seem like a good enough reason for Apple to start selling these publicly.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Why unfortunately? I'd say it's quite fortunate that grocery stores and gas stations are still operational.
    - samename 6y ago
      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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sailfast 6y ago

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?

brodie 6y ago
They don’t reduce risk of infection in day to day situations. They’re specialized medical tools used in appropriate situations. Also, please put on a mask and leave your house. You aren’t on permanent curfew. Do some essential activities each day.
- sailfast 6y ago
  Of course I put on a mask, and I rarely leave the house. I was not aware they were not helpful when generally interacting with others - obviously then I wouldn’t want to wear one.

m0zg 6y ago

I do hope to buy a box of N100 masks when this is over. I strongly suspect I'm not alone.

coldtea 6y ago

>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. Mostly time given current priorities -- given that we've spent 100000x the materials and money buying every kind of disposable plastic crap every year for no reason at all...

samatman 6y ago

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.

Talanes 6y ago
It's very simple to just put up a full shield between the clerk and the customers, you don't need to strap the shield to people's faces when there's a static point of contact.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  This has the benefit of preventing you from touching your face after touching things customers have touched.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    If you're a retail worker and you haven't trained yourself to not touch your face while in work mode, I don't know what to tell you. Be better?
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
      Or to wear protective gear that costs basically nothing. Not touching your face at all is extremely difficult where as wearing a mask is very simple. Why suggest very difficult measures when very simple ones work better.
- brodie 6y ago
  I had to go to the hospital today for a follow up X-ray after a month long life threatening illness. Every single desk and checkpoint inside either had the glass windows slightly cracked open but essentially closed, or they were draped in plastic covers. My pharmacy also did the same thing.

awaythrower 6y ago

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

TallGuyShort 6y ago
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.

TallGuyShort 6y ago

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?

amalcon 6y ago
That strong suggestion is so that a person with the virus will be wearing the mask, and therefore less likely to infect other people. That type of mask is more or less useless for protecting its wearer; its purpose is to protect everyone else.

woofie11 6y ago

Yes. In January and February, we were "meant to" all keep traveling, spending, going to conferences, and parades. I'm not sure how a passive "meant to" helps. And we were all "meant to" not wear face masks, until just now. These things are common sense. If you don't believe a face shield will help, why bother sneezing in your elbow? We have three modes of potential transmission: 1) Large droplets, where face shields increase the effective distance from others. 2) Contact, where faceshield prevent you from accidentally touching your face. 3) Aerosol, where faceshields don't do a thing. But reducing 2 out of 3 modes of transmission for a buck or two makes complete sense.