4 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
      - alexbanks 7y ago
        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 7y ago
        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.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        alexbanks 7y ago
        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 7y ago
        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.
  - brodie 7y ago
    There’s no mental gymnastics happening. You’re just ignoring what medical workers are saying and assuming your intuition is infallible. It’s easy to understand why it’s dangerous to deprive those workers of shields to benefit to yourself. And manufacturing cost is not the same as availability. We don’t have instantaneous infinite supplies of these.
mike_d 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - brodie 7y ago
    Face shields aren’t seatbelts. Someone put it well when they said they’re ejector seats. I assume you aren’t flying jets or intubating patients.
simonh 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.
      - simonh 7y ago
        Appropriate equipment yes, absolutely. But even doctors and nurses do not wear face shields routinely around hospitals. They are worn when performing particular procedures and circumstances that don’t apply to most situations even in hospitals.
kevinmgranger 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - brodie 7y ago
    That this article was written shows clearly that we don’t have enough of them and that any non-medical professional buying them is only contributing to the population of ill and the dead.
brodie 7y ago
They don’t provide the general public any significant protection. It’s basically the same as not wearing one, except you’re condemning health professionals to increased risk, exposure, and possible death.

alexbanks 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
    - alexbanks 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        alexbanks 7y ago
        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 7y ago
        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.
- brodie 7y ago
  There’s no mental gymnastics happening. You’re just ignoring what medical workers are saying and assuming your intuition is infallible. It’s easy to understand why it’s dangerous to deprive those workers of shields to benefit to yourself. And manufacturing cost is not the same as availability. We don’t have instantaneous infinite supplies of these.

mike_d 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  [deleted]
- brodie 7y ago
  Face shields aren’t seatbelts. Someone put it well when they said they’re ejector seats. I assume you aren’t flying jets or intubating patients.

simonh 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
    - simonh 7y ago
      Appropriate equipment yes, absolutely. But even doctors and nurses do not wear face shields routinely around hospitals. They are worn when performing particular procedures and circumstances that don’t apply to most situations even in hospitals.

kevinmgranger 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- brodie 7y ago
  That this article was written shows clearly that we don’t have enough of them and that any non-medical professional buying them is only contributing to the population of ill and the dead.

brodie 7y ago

They don’t provide the general public any significant protection. It’s basically the same as not wearing one, except you’re condemning health professionals to increased risk, exposure, and possible death.