14 ms·

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. Ho

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 7y 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 7y ago
  Yeah but he said face shield
- DennisP 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.

abduhl 7y 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 7y ago
Yeah but he said face shield
DennisP 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.