“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.
They're donating a million face shields by the end of the week to hospitals and medical facilities with the greatest need, and 20m by the end of the month, designed by Apple and sourced via their existing supply chain.
The cutting tools (dies) for cutting flat sheets like this can be made in literally one day by the type of factories that Apple works with (less if you're in a real hurry).
I visited a cardboard packaging factory near Shenzhen before; They use a combination of a CNC router to cut out slots in the die base plate and a CNC folding machine to pre-fold the cutting angles into the cutting blades.
Smaller hole / lozenge shape cutters are sourced in as pre-fabricated components.
The design is very smart from a manufacturability point of view, I expect we will see other factories making similar face shields in the 100s of millions shortly. Which is great... One of our local supermarkets is already using similar face shields for their customer-facing staff.
Going only off of the video I saw of Tim Cook with the shield...
The entire shield is a clear plastic film. It’s held against the forehead using a fabric strap. The shield appears to be either die cut or laser cut, which explains the production speed. A lot of the face shields shown online are 3D printed with hard plastic components, which is a very slow process.
The material looks a lot like the clear plastic film that wraps an iPhone or even an iPad charger. The shield folds together in the same origami-like way. Based on comments about the supply chain being involved, it seems like they leveraged the existing manufacturing process for Apple product packaging and thickened the plastic.
3D printing seems crazy for a single sheet of bendy plastic that needs to be mass produced. Cutting them out by hand with a knife or a scissors would be better than 3d printing, never mind laser or die cutting.
I'm not sure what the person above is talking about. I haven't seen a single face shield design involving a 3d printed piece that didn't also require a sheet of bendy plastic cut to fit with that 3d printed piece.
I was laser cutting the clear parts of the shields with a local makerspace. We ran out of the thicker material that was being used, now there is a worldwide shortage. We were making for doctors and nurses in hospitals, so we wanted something more substantial. These look pretty flimsy, but are probably better than nothing. We failed to realize the supply of our material was not infinite. We actually had a fair number of people 3D printing, but that was still a major bottleneck.
These are only used by doctors and nurses when treating patients with open airways at very close range to protect from direct splatters with body fluids. Eg when intubating a patient that’s having explosive coughing fits. They are also part of a complete protective system including a mask, elasticated hair cover, full body wrap aprons and long arm gloves. There is no point using a shield without the rest if the gear because if you are in a situation where you need the shield, you also need the rest as well.
Most medical professionals don’t even wear this full kit routinely in hospitals, let alone when they are out in public, so there’s no need for the public to use them in general working conditions.
> There is no point using a shield without the rest if the gear because if you are in a situation where you need the shield, you also need the rest as well.
This is the same class of bullshit the WHO, CDC and FDA were pushing about face masks less than a week ago. There is no way this is worse than nothing. If a face shield used with no other PPE reduces the viral load the average healthcare worker is exposed to by 1% fewer people will be infected and those who do will be more likely to recover as their immune system has more time to ramp up defenses.
This will reduce R0. There is no plausible mechanism of action for a face shield to work as PPE together with a respirator, or as part of a full suit of PPE, under which it provides no protection when used alone.
correct. it's not worse than nothing. it's literally not possible to be "worse than nothing".
However to your point it only protects against spray. So, yes, it's better than nothing if you're in front of someone coughing / vomiting directly on you.
BUT it doesn't do much of anything for the aerosolized particles. Better masks has coverings above the top to prevent those from coming in from above, but in this case apple appears to be going for quantity and speed over quality.
> if a face shield used with no other PPE reduces the viral load the average healthcare worker is exposed to by 1%
If you are practicing social distancing then a face shield really provides essentially zero protection. I have seen no evidence or even suggestion by a medical professional that wearing these while keeping a distance from infected individuals would provide ANY protection.
The main problem is aerosolized material (also direct contact but gloves and not touching your face address that). These don't help with aerosolized material. It just floats around them and gets inhaled anyway.
You want these if you are up close to someone who is infected or potentially infected because mouths spew forth bad things: vomit, coughing, etc. and you frequently don't have time to jump out of the way.
There are about a million infected individuals right now, and climbing, and each hospitalised patient in ITU may need these procedures several times a day. An ITU team performing the procedure might consist of 2 to 4 people and the shields should be discarded every time. The number of patients is also rising rapidly, so demand is very high.
When you see doctors and nurses in full scrubs with face shields doing their shopping, then you know you need this equipment. However if you're really concerned there are other options[0].
Maybe I'm missing something, but the page literally has a section titled "Clean and reuse your face shield" and lists the chemicals that should be used to clean it.
The doctor or nurse probably won't be able to do that process everytime they use the mask. Like other reusable hospital supplies it will be collected somewhere to be cleaned in bulk. The point above is that so many will be used in a short span of time that even a 24 or 12 hour cleaning rotation will not keep up without large numbers being available.
this should only be done when you're so screwed that you don't have clean ones available. This is literally war-time thinking. It's also completely impractical to do at hospital scale, but if it's your only option...
I'm curious, I've been seeing a lot of calls for 3D printing similar looking Face shields, which are very different from face masks. What is the use for this? Are they actually useful to health care professionals? Face mask + goggles fully covers the 3 places the virus can enter (mouth, nose and eyes), but these shields seem like they would be more useful for people who have the virus than those who don't.
COVID-19 is very likely only marginally spread by aerosols (I take this from Robert Koch Institute, Germany information [1]), approximately 10% by contact spread and mainly by direct transmission of droplets.
Faceshield therefore protects from the main transmission vector. It's not impossible to get infected otherwise, simply much less likely. Your main enemy are getting coughed/sneezed/talked at in close proximity.
Surface spread is likely also extremely limited (source: Prof. Hendrik Streecke who continues to study COVID-19 in the German epicenter of Heinsberg [2]). Money quote from source:
> "Wir waren in einem Haushalt, wo viele hochinfektiöse Menschen gelebt haben, und trotzdem haben wir kein lebendes Virus von irgendeiner Oberfläche bekommen.“
English: "We have studied a household where highly infectious individuals resided and have still been unable to find any living virus on any surface."
All virus residues found have been dead virus material.
So this is likely a dumb idea, but if things got truly desperate I wonder if a snorkel mask would be a decent improvised protection. Your eyes and nose would be completely covered and your mouth is getting air from a direction/location that is unlikely to be in the "line of fire" from someone coughing or sneezing.
But if you have to breathe in infected air, doing so with your nose is far better than your mouth, since your nasal cavity has thicker membranes and a lot of mucus and hairs to catch particles, whereas through your mouth the particles are going straight into your lungs.
In fact, that effect might be so significant evolutionationary that it is the reason we have a seperate nose and mouth, rather than combining the two.
Put a peg on your nose... You won't have any trouble eating after a few minutes practice. You just breathe between chewing.
The biggest problem is actually eating hot food - it seems the mouth can withstand hotter foods than the lungs, which get painful if you breathe in the steam from the half chewed food in your mouth.
Definitely. A snorkel/scuba mask is going to be better protection than most masks, though relatively expensive to produce and clean and can't be treated as disposable.
Face shields provide specific protection against bodily fluids: sneezes, blood sprays, etc., that would further soil the masks you wear underneath them.
> Face mask + goggles fully covers the 3 places the virus can enter (mouth, nose and eyes)
I believe face masks are only 95% effective at best and that's only with a proper N95 which a lot of medical staff appear not to be able to get hold of. Hence they're wearing things like Buffs or cycling masks to make do. In that situation, having another layer that can stop droplets etc. from reaching the mask in the first place makes sense to me.
Plus it stops a whole lot of messy body fluids from reaching the mask and goggles which cuts out a swap/clean cycle (again, difficult if there's no spares!)
For people not aware (I doubt that it's many in this audience), Santa Clara Valley is better(?) known as Silicon Valley. It's where Apple's based, and it's unpleasantly warm spot in the US for SARS-CoV-2 infections.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> What a tool was being used for 2 months ago isn't relevant
It is very relevant. 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.
If you're talking about adapting construction grade shields (like used for painting, etc) for medical use -- sure. But you aren't going to use a face shield as a replacement for a face mask, which is what it seems like you're arguing for.
If you're saying that you should wear a face shield in public to protect yourself from aerosolized virus -- that's not the point of a face shield. The particles can travel around the sides of the mask too easily. If you want to protect from small, airborne particles, you need a mask.
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.
What if I want to protect myself and my facemask from large droplets. I also want to protect myself from accidentally touching my face. Is a face shield okay then?
And if so, why not drop $300 million to get one for everyone in the US? They're cheap, wash easily, and that's less than 0.02% of the last stimulus.
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.
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.
The sibling comment about smoke moving is exactly right. Smoke is a great example of how small particles can move and travel in the air. If you think that a face shield will protect you from something in the air, you'd be wrong.
Side note: this is how N95 masks are actually fit. (Well, not using smoke, but similar test). If you can smell the chemical used in the test, the fit is wrong.
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, and best, recommendation.
Isn't the recommendations by many countries to wear even cloth masks (e.g. the recent reversal by the CDC) _because_ there's a good chance COVID-19 can spread via large (i.e. non-aerosolized) respiratory droplets?
(Not that it doesn't also spread in other ways, but removing even one vector would be better in this case than not doing so.)
I'm not sure why there is a recommendation to wear cloth masks in other countries (not discounting it, I just haven't looked). However, I believe that the primary rationale for the CDC switching their recommendation that everyone should wear masks has to do with the great numbers of asymptomatic carriers. In this scenario, wearing a mask is not designed to protect the wearer from others. Wearing an ill-fitting mask is not protective to the individual. Instead, wearing a mask is designed to protect others from the wearer. Because people are carriers before they exhibit symptoms (if they ever have symptoms), you can't know if you are infected or not. If you are wearing a mask, you are limiting the potential spread of virus from you. This way, you are keeping any potential virus closer to you so that others are more protected. This goes hand in hand with social distancing. If you use a mask and don't distance yourself, you aren't helping at all. I'm looking for a CDC reference, but this was also the rationale presented in local media reports.
If you're really curious, Ars Technica has a really good writeup of all of the relevant studies.
Most of the research above assumed either surgical or N95-style masks. There was one study that looked at use of cloth (non-medical, non N95) masks, and this was the key finding (from Ars, not the paper):
Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles.
Regarding everyone wearing (surgical) masks to protect others:
In a study published April 3, 2020 in Nature Medicine, researchers found that surgical masks reduced the detection of respiratory viruses in aerosols generated by infected people breathing or coughing in a breath-collecting machine.
> Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles.
Hoo boy that's misleading by itself. The control group was "use what you normally use", and had the following numbers:
> In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period.
Given those numbers, it's basically impossible to use this data to tell us anything about the efficacy of cloth mask vs. no mask. The control group did wear their masks less often, but it's still very unhelpful data.
> This may lead some members of the public to be lax about ... washing their hands frequently and thoroughly. Moreover, donning [a] mask may lead some people to touch their faces more, some argued.
> simply touching their mask could contaminate their hands if there are viral particles caught on the outside ... a mask wearer could then transfer virus particles from their mask to their face
So even with all the above steps that have to occur, it's still no worse than getting a face-full of Covid directly.
Almost every stupid, pointless, dangerous argument against masks boils down to:
People may not wear a mask properly.
People may not wash their hands properly.
The first one is used as an argument against masks, so why is the second not only not used as an argument against hand washing, but also used in arguments against masks?
People don't always practice social distancing. So why don't people argue against that? Oh, because that too is reserved for arguments against masks.
It's fucking ridiculous. Why do some people continue to spend so much time and effort trying to discourage use of potentially life-saving items?
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 :)
That is something that I've been wondering about too. I work in biotech but not as a scientist. These things are tricky to nail down as they seem to be very individual specific. Theoretically, in an exponential growth model, it wouldn't matter if you were inoculated with 20000 or 200000 virons, after the incubation period post-infection, you're going to be generating a huge amount, millions and millions, of virus particles in either case. Certainly, if you keep getting exposed, you're immune system is going to get overwhelmed quickly, but for a single event, I don't think it matters.
Thanks for taking the time to post the link, but it wasn't convincing as it lacked data and other relevant scientific information that I was looking for. Personally, I do not consider the NYT to a reliable source of information, but I know many do so maybe the link will help someone else.
It increases the effective time large droplets need to spend in the air to get to me, and decreases the airflow around me. It's about the same reason plexiglass screens help, and keeping a 6-foot distance helps.
It’s okay to admit you’re wrong. It’s okay to not understand everything. It’s okay to defer to experts.
So many people on HN and in tech have the same attitude that if they just spend 5 minutes thinking about something then they can intuit an answer and that they must be right. This is a dangerous way of thinking. If anyone took what you’ve been saying as correct they’d be endangering themselves and depriving medical professionals of tools they need.
But I'm getting my opinions from the experts? See [0]. They recommend covering your face. I agree with them that cloth is more effective than a plastic shield but I'd expect a plastic shield to still be better than nothing. You've got to try and stop droplets from leaving your mouth and reaching other people.
A face shield would be better than failing to create a makeshift covering from a shirt for most people and it'd be resistant to decomposing so it could be stored long term in a home. It'd be a reasonable thing to stockpile.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to stockpile given the huge demand for them by medical professionals.
I also can’t imagine a situation where you can order and wait for a shield but don’t have the time or resources to get a surgical mask or cloth.
And obviously the shield alone isn’t going to protect you from particles. And it might not help slow the spread if you’re infected yourself.
But again I’m speculating. If the health professionals say they need them and the public doesn’t, I’ll defer to them. I’m not an expert in their field and I don’t want to pretend to be or cause anyone to think I am.
This is just common sense. Aerosolized particles are not impeded by a shield. A shield is intended to obstruct ballistic projectiles. If those projectiles are aerosolized and are in the air that you breathe, then the shield will offer no protection at all. Even an N95 mask still can let in up to 5% of these particles. What efficacy is a piece of plastic in front of your face going to do against that?
> If those projectiles are aerosolized and are in the air that you breathe
It seems like you're imagining that the mucus and saliva particles would behave like a gas, but it's a suspension of liquid particles in the air, which behaves slightly differently. Think of breathing onto glass -- a lot of the aerosol I expel adheres to the glass. Some smaller droplets may move around it, but it's still preferable to receive a smaller dose of the virus.
[I'm no microbiology expert, so obviously take this with a grain of salt :-).]
I'm not sure whether the initial dose affects the severity of the disease, but it seems clear that it at least affects the probability of infection. The individual action hypothesis [1] posits that each individual pathogen has an independent chance of infecting a host, i.e.
P(no infection | n pathogens) = P(no infection | single pathogen)^n
So if one is exposed to a single unit of the virus, infection is theoretically possible but unlikely. At higher doses infection becomes overwhelmingly likely.
I don't know how accurate the IAH model is, but there seems to be a good amount of evidence that infection rates are at least positively correlated with dose, e.g. [2].
Well there's two things. There is the 'minimum viable dose' which you can estimate for various diseases, that will most likely result in an infection. And then there is the dose size (above that minimum).
With an exponential curve, whether you start off with 10,000 or 100,000, given that it takes about 2 weeks for our adaptive immunity to kick in, the virus is going to be in the hundreds of millions in either case.
[I work in vaccines, but not as a scientist, so I'm just trying to absorb as much as possible here..]
Yeah that's fair -- there might be some high-exposure situations (like being coughed on) where infection is very likely with or without a face shield.
I suspect that a lot of airbone infections are from inhaling small doses here and there though, considering how long mucus droplets can stay suspended [1] --
> Particles of diameters 1-3 μm remained suspended almost indefinitely, 10 μm took 17 min, 20 μm took 4 min, and 100 μm took 10 s to fall to the floor.
I'm really not a medical expert at all. But, just thinking about it one could at least speculate or argue: A smaller payload means the virus takes a longer time to "become very active" in the body and delaying this "ramp up" period may give your body's immune response a longer lead time from when it first "sees" the virus to when it becomes dangerous to you.
Well with an exponential curve, even if the amount of the initial dose changes 10 fold, from 20,000 to 200,000 virons you will get to hundreds of millions in pretty much the same time. I believe adaptive immunity takes about a week or two to kick in, and in that time the virus is going to keep multiplying like crazy, regardless of the dose.
Also, suppose you were living with a partner and both of you got infected. Both of you will continually shed and "re-infect" the other, so would we expect that the infection will necessarily be severe?
> this is how N95 masks are actually fit. (Well, not using smoke, but similar test). If you can smell the chemical used in the test, the fit is wrong.
And if the smell is less strong than it would be if you weren’t wearing the mask the viral load you’ve been exposed to is smaller. You are less likely to be infected and if you are infected your immune system has more time to ramp up so you’re more likely to fight it off.
Viruses don't diffuse through the air like smoke. Viruses are contained within the aerosolised droplets of your bodily fluids that are ejected through sneezing, coughing, blowing the nose. The survival of the virus outside of the body exposed to the elements is limited. Viruses have limited lifespans and can only reproduce within the medium of the bodily fluid. Every virus has different characteristics, and may have a longer or shorter lifespan. These characteristics are more or less universal for viruses though.
It's not impossible for them to travel longer distances through the air. For the most part they are limited to the initial propulsion from the body. A better analogy would be spraying an aerosol can and watching how the droplets settle.
I think a better comparison would be to try inhaling wet steam (i.e. a suspension of liquid H2O) from behind a face shield. You'll probably inhale some, but a lot of it will adhere to the shield.
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.
>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.
You ARE the person in the faceshield (I assume you meant that instead of facemask), you don't control what other people do so assume they uncovered. The smoke is in the air, it can reach you. Will it get around that shield or not?
How could me wearing a face shield help protect me from catching the virus? It'd be mostly useless; although obviously as mentioned it'd stop me touching my face as much as normal.
This is all about containing the spread.
Although I suppose in hindsight that explains why people were downvoting me.
This is potentially misleading. Viral load is a significant factor in the seriousness of most infectious diseases. This is why you'll likely be ok if you pass a coughing TB patient in the street and inhale a few bacteria, but are much more prone to contract TB if you spend an entire day cooped up in a small room with the same coughing, infected individual.
This is thought to be why an unexpectedly high proportion of young, healthy doctors and nurses are getting seriously ill from Covid-19. Statically, you'd expect almost all of them to get mild disease.
> There is currently a global pandemic afoot that is spread by droplets expelled from people's mouth and nose.
Do you have any source on how face shields are an effective tool against atomized covid19 viruses? The general guidance is that facial masks are effective at barring infected people from emitting contaminated particles, but not good at stopping healthy people from having contact with the virus. Therefore why would an open face shield, which filters zero, be a better solution?
That's the general guidance in countries getting overrun by COVID-19. In countries which have stopped it, everyone wears facemasks. Chinese scientists have good data that surgical masks help in both directions.
Face shields reduce flow of air around you. Think of the six foot rule, but add a few more feet. They also reduce projectile sneezes (and "say-it-don't-spray-it" talking, coughs, and even breathing) by quite a bit. Think about sneezing in your elbow, only much better.
I hear mask promoters say the “it’s to protect others from you” line, only to turn around and say “masks are obviously useful, that’s why doctors wear them.” The truth is, mask use is built on incredibly shaky evidence, so it’s no surprise that now face shields will become part of the hype. Both may indeed be useful, but without a clear model of effectiveness, it’s hard to make good assessments.
You seem to conflate so many things here. Doctors wear mulitiple types of masks. Surgical masks (as are recommended for the general public) prevent a doctor from spitting on a patient accidentally (just as they prevent an infected individual from expelling virus laden spit droplets). Surgical masks provide limited (if any) protection from airborne droplets. Rather an N95 masks (with a seal and filter) is used. To make this effective to protect the wearer, goggles must also be worn. The general public does not wear goggles. Further,training on putting on and taking off masks is provided to medical professionals. Face shields protect from yet another class of dangers (splashing of contaminated fluid). The general public has little reason to wear these.
I thought the entire point of wearing a mask was precisely because we don't have clear evidence as to it's effectiveness. With such a degree of uncertainty (we are literally in the midst of an epidemic) it's not very practical to wait around for perfect information and evidence before you act
Also, tin foil hats. You can't prove they DON'T work, can you? Even if they only add marginal protection, every bit counts. And they might, so can it hurt? This is why we are recommending tin foil hats to all Americans. That and a nice contribution from the tin foil lobby. We expect all Americans to commence procuring and constructing tin foil hats, and arguing about it on social media, and hope that this distracts them from noticing that their government is practically a failed state.
It turns out that "feeling safe" isn't the same thing as being safe, and feelings of safety will not actually effect infection rates, but Americans can't quite grasp that. And, hey, feelings of safety are about all we've got now, so.
I hope a doctor or nurse or respiratory therapist can correct me, but my layman’s impression is that intubation itself isn’t causing deaths as much as having to be intubated means you’re already in dire straits.
I was recently intubated 3 times in the last month and had no ill effects. I know that’s just an anecdote but no doctor ever told me it would be super risky. The alternative to not getting it however usually meant death.
> pulling or pushing a tube down a patient's esophagus
No, that's another procedure. Intubating respiratory patients involves targeting the trachea and avoiding the esophagus. An esophageal intubation can be Very Bad.
That said, as an early advocate for face masks for the general public, I'm in 100% agreement that face shields are pointless for the general public. We don't need them.
To go into a little more depth (I assume you'll see this given that you appear to be monitoring my threads):
You seem to have a mental model whereby any viral particle that bypasses your body's physical barriers has "won" - game over. But that's now how the immune system works. We want to minimize the viral load as much as possible, since with all known infectious organizations there's a dose-response relationship: the larger the dose, the worse the illness often is. Tiny loads are often effectively fought off my the immune system.
We this is vividly in a bacterial illness like TB. In TB, there's little risk if you pass a coughing TB patient in the hall. But if you spend the day with them in a poorly-ventilated office, your risk increases. If you live with the patient, your risk is very high.
The same principle applies with viral illnesses like Covid-19. And given that the only access route that is actively pulling viral particles into the body is the respiratory tract, it stands to reason that protecting that route has a higher payoff than protecting a lower risk route like the eyes.
That's not to say that people in high risk situations like Covid-19 wards of hospitals shouldn't cover their eyes! Obviously, they should and do. However, for most of us, the best protection we can use without using BL4 protection gear (obviously, not practical or needed for the general public) is to wear a mask. Mostly, the mask is to protect others from you, but depending on what kind of mask it is, it can also protect you from the virus.
Finally, most health authorities are now recommending that the general public wear masks. CDC changed their recommendations a week or two ago to recommend wearing masks. As usual, the WHO is moving slowly as large bureaucracies often do, but I don't doubt they'll also recommend them in the end as more evidence of their efficacy emerges.
> intubation, which is the process of pulling or pushing a tube down a patient's esophagus
Hope not. It's endotracheal intubation. Tubing the gut (accidentally) leads to gastric distention as we ventilate the patient, leads to aspiration, leads to aspiration pneumonia, leads to huge increase in morbidity.
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.
Does esophageal intubation happen much? I was intubated a month ago due to non-COVID respiratory failure. I also ended up getting pneumonia but no one knows when I got it. If that happened to me would my medical team have told me? Speaking generally obviously since you don’t know my case of course.
> If that happened to me would my medical team have told me?
I don't know where you are. In England healthcare professionals and their organisations have a statutory "Duty of Candour". They have to tell you when something went wrong, why it went wrong, what they're going to try to do to fix it for you, and what they're doing to prevent it happening again in future.
In general esophageal intubation results in death. The patient is not getting oxygen, and so they die. I believe esophageal intubation gets reported to the Board of Medicine and is a really big deal for the hospital and doctor involved.
"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.
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.
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.
Based on a number of reports I've read about the N95 market, there seems to be plenty of PPE available domestically, but it's all being sold to foreign buyers because the government refuses to institute export controls.
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.
How about this? https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-gun-sales-asian-califor.... Asians don't exactly fit the traditional stereotypes for firearms purchasers but the attacks described and similar bad behavior directed at international students from Asia on college campuses certainly show that there are people out there willing to attack them based on imagined threats and therefore some level of concern by Asians for their personal safety is merited.
I notice that it's "the media are telling them that Asians are being targeted", not "Asians are buying guns because they're suffering from racist attacks". Again, the belief that people will do bad things to each other when order breaks down is much more prevalent than the actual incidence of people doing bad things to each other when order breaks down.
I'm not saying it can't happen - there are always racist assholes out there. But the media will tell one story of a racist asshole harassing an Asian family rather than 100 stories of people being genuinely nice to each other in a crisis. Because we'll click on that one bad story and ignore the 100 nice ones.
I find your dismissiveness of the idea that racist attacks against Asians could be actually be occurring to be disappointing but not surprising in members of the modern left.
I repeat, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am not "dismissing" racist attacks. I'm saying that media will massively over-report any such attacks, and under-report any incidences of people being nice to each other. So we end up with a belief (based on the evidence that we receive from the media) that we're going to be attacked, and not (which is the vast majority of actual interactions) that strangers will help us.
I've seen what happens when the electricity goes out and stores are forced to close - people are really nice to each other and help each other out whenever they can.
Let me put it another way: if you owned a gun, would "the electricity is out" be a reason to shoot someone?
Imagine being at the gas pump, and the person next to you sprays gasoline at you. A faceshield might keep your face from getting soaking wet, but if you smell the fumes, it hasn't prevented exposure to your sinuses or lungs.
I'm hoping Doctors aren't being hosed down with concentrated gallons of trillions and trillions of virus. PPEs aren't going to do much in that situation.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
If anything his comment reinforces negative stereotypes about the two regions. So many people in the Bay Area look down on Oakland like it’s a blighted disease-ridden wasteland and think the peninsula is some kind of haven for the rich and well off.
For reference, one of those institutions is in Palo Alto and the other is in Oakland. While Oakland has been massively gentrified it's still much more affordable to live in compared with Palo Alto.
No, THAT’s untrue. Look at your own link. You can sterilize the mask to preserve its filtration ability, but no one has shown it maintains fit. A poorly fit N95 is no protection at all, which is why hc workers get formally fit tested when starting a new gig. Which is why That link makes “no one knows what it does to fit” one of its top line bulletpoints.
There’s no plausible mechanism of action for masks under which this is true. A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of particles which is less than the kind of hazmat spacesuit with face shield and positive air pressure you’d ideally be wearing if working with someone with Ebola or similar. Maybe it really is impossible to get proper fit on a reused mask. Perhaps it’s only as good as a normal surgical mask which blocks just under 90% of virus sized particles.
Every reduction in the amount of virus that gets into your lungs makes it less likely that you’ll get infected and if infected gives your immune system more time to ramp up. That’s why people care about viral load. Running through someone’s cough is less likely to kill you than being in a small poorly ventilated room with someone coughing uncontrollably for minutes at a time.
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.
> When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so
There's the data and very clear recommendations by the CDC on when and how to do it. Whats' the confusing part? I don't think anyone is suggesting this approach during non-crisis times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And some of them (especially within those fields) may be forced by their employer to work part-time and not be eligible for employer sponsored health insurance.
You’re allowed to leave your house. Exercise, pet walking, and essential shopping and other essential activities aren’t banned. Put on a mask and go for a walk in your neighborhood and keep social distancing.
Right - this is obviously what I would do. However, if face shields were helpful for reducing risks for general interaction (no idea if they are) then I’d also want one. The fastest path to leaving the house is reducing the risk of leaving, so some simple PPE (that is more effective than a mask) would be great.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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...
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.
> 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.
> Unfortunately, any help that wearing a mask would offer to the wearer is often countered by the false sense of security that they bring
Today's cars are extremely safe. Are you saying that they actually increase accidents because it gives people false sense of security? Should we remove some of the protections, for example the seat belt, because that would make people drive more carefully?
Tesla autopilot crashes are a closer analogy. A seatbelt is (generally) not an improperly used piece of safety equipment, it generates actual security.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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%.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
The risk is very high, my wife is a nurse here in the UK and is infected. Fortunately she has light symptoms and a light cough. When I am with her we both wear a face mask, but there is no need for a shield because I’m not intubating her her or at risk of heavy splatter from close range explosive coughing. Again, even doctors in hospitals only wear face shields under specific circumstances, which are situations the general public are not likely to find themselves in. That’s why you don’t even see doctors and nurses wearing face shields in public or taking them home. Outside those specific circumstances they don’t need them, and we don’t need them.
I would humbly suggest that doctors very rarely deal with diseases this dangerous (infectiousness + lethality) and that more extreme protection is warranted. As you well know, it is difficult to not catch this thing.
I would much rather overdo my PPE than underdo it. Overdoing it just costs me a little time, underdoing it costs lives and injury.
If you want to see what it takes to have a hospital where no one gets infected, this is instructive. https://youtu.be/9HsGqQCLzLU
You’re not listening to what he said. He argued no such thing. You however seem content to deprive doctors and nurses of important tools and compromise their safety and patient safety so you can selfishly take something that provides zero protection to you.
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.
Plenty of states have stay at home orders. Mine does. It isn’t clear to me the federal government has the authority to issue that kind of order, short of martial law. The US government isn’t identical to many other countries. States are like quasi-countries, legally, authority-wise, and culturally.
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.
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.
Because they’re dying doesn’t mean shields will help. I think the medically inclined people in this discussion are making reasoned arguments. You however are just appealing to hysteria.
I can imagine so many other more likely reasons for those deaths than face shield usage.
Face shields aren’t protective wear in public. Taking them away from doctors and nurses however does increase mortality for them and patients in general.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eh. That poster believes they've "figured it out", and those that've died just "didn't figure it out." Reasoning won't work, and unfortunately they're able to do whatever they want. I hope Apple has aggressively limited how much PPE they'll waste on civilians.
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.
Speculation doesn’t make you right. “Likely to” counts for not much.
It’s sad you made that purchase. I wonder if that deprived a doctor or nurse of one. If they died, you’ve essentially condemned them to that. Is your own selfish neurosis worth that?
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.
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.
They linked a study and then cherry picked some data from it. IIRC it was a controlled study of ~20 people, and the actual reduction % was "50-90% reduction" where every person ALSO washed their hands a minimum of 10 times per day.
I would also assert that they probably trained each participant on how to use the masks effectively, whereas I suspect OP (and most of the N95 mask hoarders) would contaminate them to the point of being useless.
edit Ah, you responded in a different place saying basically what I just said wrt contamination. Good on you.
We also know that "doffing" (taking off) the PPE is difficult, and that many healthcare professionals are infected when they take it off. I don't think most members of the public can comply with the complicated donning and doffing protocols.
More importantly, the imprints and bruises are from full-mask respirators and goggles (and one FPP3 mask), not N95 masks. Have you ever worn one (and been fitted for one)? I have, when I worked as an EMT years ago. I also have worn one N99 or N95 mask for years when cleaning out my guinea pig cages. It's not that bad.
In terms of doffing the masks, it's pretty straight-forward: To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water (via WHO).
I'm not sure what's driving your passionate anti-mask campaign (N95 and otherwise), but I urge you to look into what doctors and public health experts have started recommending after considering the evidence and what we know about how this infection is spreading:
Absolutely stay home if you can. It's the most effective way to avoid spreading or contracting Covid-19. But wear a mask if/when you must go out (to grocery store, drugstore, essential job, etc).
The Dutch police is now free to use them as spit masks. Unfortunately there are people who like to spit and cough in the faces of the police (and then being charged with weeks in jail).
But I doubt it will work well against coughing because the airflow can just go around it.
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.
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.
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.
Plenty of essential public areas are building plastic drapes. That’s effectively the same thing but likely cheaper and not depriving medical professionals of anything.
here in the UK they are introducing plastic shields between checkout operators and customers. largely the same and saves staff from needing to wear PPE
Make your own. Transparency sheet with corners cut rounded, foam strip cut from a sponge stuck along one edge of the sheet with double sided tape, elastic strap stapled to two corners. Easy and effective. We have been making and donating them to hopsitals and first responders in our area (not in the US) who are happy to get them.
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.
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.
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?
Apple stores aren't getting any shipments right now. Even if they were, those stores are closed and Apple isn't going to open them to sell a few face masks to consumers. By the time Apple stores open, even fewer people will want face masks. (And Apple won't want them on their shelves regardless)
Apple's distribution network is built around selling consumer electronics, not medical supplies.
This isn't remotely the sort of product Apple would manufacture and sell. It's not worth the time and effort to design retail packaging for it.
A lot less than you think. Huge swathes of the country don't have Apple stores. Even living in the Puget Sound region, my nearest Apple store is 25 miles from me.
By and large Apple distribution is "UPS". Both to wholesale and retail.
Face shields aren’t protective in this context for the general public. No one is intubating coughing patients or working in messy medical situations unless they’re medical professionals. It isn’t sad that hypochondriacs might not have access to them. It’s reality that infinite instant supplies don’t exist. You aren’t entitled to have whatever you want. Especially when you’d be depriving medical professionals safety and life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you got something directed at your eyes, you’ll be inhaling something anyway. Wear glasses or shades and stop depriving hospitals of limited supplies they actually need. You don’t need it. Buying one is tantamount to endangering lives of hospital workers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, literally everything that they changed is a strict improvement. UI wise the 'new' keyboard is identical to the pre-butterfly, which gives me some confidence that it will also have the absurd durability which MacBook keyboards historically have.
I even suspect that the smaller keys, greater travel, and more space between each, has made me a bit more accurate and hence faster. No actual data to back that...
My remaining gripe is the lack of haptic feedback on the touch bar. But I expect to get many years of use out of this computer with no complaints.
The nice bonus is that the speakers are excellent. Like, shockingly good, I don't bother putting in earbuds for most video anymore.
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?
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?)
I thought it was already well established that anything you buy from China has some level of child/slave labor attached to it. Most people see it as an externality.
If you care about slave labor, buying Apple would be one of your mitigations. They have extensive outside review of their supply chain practices, reported on regularly.
Your risks are more smaller companies that the media hasn’t put through the ringer. And Samsung, which got caught using prison labor.
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 ;)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
My "argument" was in response to the parent comment saying 3D Manufacturing can 'scale'. Which it certainly can, just not as simply or efficiently as traditional methods. Especially in this case with such a simple part.
I didn't intend to impinge on the people helping hospitals or people with faceshields now via 3D manufacturing hence the 'It's good...' part. Rather simply comment on scaling up manufacturing methods.
> But for an equal amount of effort, raws and manpower you could get much more out of traditional manufacturing, much quicker.
The set of people who have 3D Printers at home, and the set of people with access to large-scale injection-moulding facilities (along with tool production) likely have a very small overlap.
I imagine those that do have access to those facilities were already trying to make those tools (assuming they wern't already occupied with other more urgent tasks). It just takes longer for them to scale up, and there's fewer of them in a smaller number of locations.
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.
Actually Prusa has a print farm with hundreds of printers or more normally used to print parts for their printers. But they possess significant manufacturing capability in their in house print farm, plus laser cutters for face shields and QA/shipping supplies. I don’t see why they wouldn’t use their substantial capacity to support COVID relief.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
Sorry, does your version of HN not display the comments you've previously written? Or does your dictionary have different definitions for the words "it" and "works"?
I don't like arguing with strangers on the internet, so I think we should probably just end this conversation, but in the future I hope you'll be more considerate before advocating for harmful techniques. Hope you're staying safe and doing alright in these strange times.
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.
There are factories that specialize in small batches. Just some quick searching seemed to suggest that you could be getting O(1000) parts a day at a cost of a few thousand dollars (for the initial setup) plus a few dollars a part [1]. I'd imagine that the lead time is a few weeks rather than days, but if there's already a stable design wouldn't this be the best bet?
Every little bit helps, and being able to desk-produce these means that you can make an impact directly and quickly. My parents are both still treating patients, and I was able to print 25+ masks for their practice.
While we're waiting for mass production to step up, these local productions make a difference now.
It just has a faster start. Here in Portugal people have been printing 3D face shield for 2 weeks (or more probably) and delivering them to those who need it.
In the meantime injection mold factories started creating the mold, fine tuning it and are now producing in large quantities.
But you see, for 2 weeks (or more) the big factories had 0 face shields coming out, which matters a lot.
People on the field don't need great and efficient solutions 2 weeks down the line, they need good enough solutions NOW.
I don't understand how the comment can have upvotes. "feels good"? Really? People with 3D printers are making a difference and actually helping those in the field. From health staff, to law enforcement to other areas. Shame on you.
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.
There's just no comparing 3d printing with the correct manufacturing equipment. This machine can probably produce hundreds of face shields per minute (wait until the end of the video for full speed):
The TLDR is: 3D printing can start instantly. Someone with CAD skills can have a design made, 3D printed and out for evaluation in hours. In takes days (or weeks) to get a good injection mold tooled and up and running. Then once the injection molding is going, 3d printing can switch to working on something else.
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.
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.
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.
This design seems pretty odd to me. You already have to have a machine that cuts thin sheet plastic to make the transparent shield part, right? The actual headband is then just another small piece of plastic sheet in Apple's (and others) designs. Seems to me that adding in a 3d printer can only slow things down, since it would be much faster to simply cut the headband with the same equipment that is cutting the shield.
I've been making these for a couple weeks now. The clear plastic part is generally sourced using the thick binder/presentation covers that come in 8.75x11.25 inch sheets, precut. The only requirement is a hole punch. Headbands can be any elastic material (I've been using button hole elastic for easy adjustment).
I'm not actually sure what you're saying, then. Why is the 3d printed version odd if the transparent part is easily sourced without needing a die cutter?
The part that is being 3d printed in these designs is easily sourced without a 3d printer. Look at Apple's design. It uses a piece of the same transparent plastic in place of the 3d printed part.
I'd imagine the flexibility you get from 3d printing could have a double edge: on one hand anyone can fork the design, which gives enormous potential for iterative development; on the other hand forks lead to a lack of interchangeable parts.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, I wasn't sure if it was just me! Coincidentally that was also the same book I learned about those two being dangerous mixed together. Just curious, have you read "Go ask Alice"?
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 but you failed to generalize.
They don't teach you how organic solvents often dissolve polar materials such as various polymers? I'm really becoming befuddled here, what do they teach then?
Well, my grade school science teacher was also my gym teacher (he may have held a third position). So we mostly just sang periodic table rhymes and made baking soda volcanos.
Despite what you may have heard, the average middle-American education doesn't prepare you for the hard science of the real world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not a doctor but it was quite clear to me reading the page that Apple was just listing the various cleaning solutions that they know won't damage the shield. I'm sure for legal reasons they won't dare tell doctors how to sterilize medical equipment.
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!
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.
Besides being Apple's CEO, Tim Cook is also possibly the best supply chain guy on the planet (that's why he became Apple's CEO). I was hoping he would get involved with pandemic supply chain issues, and now he has.
It's quite nice to see some of the most talented minds in the tech private sector work towards solving our medical needs, I know it will end with the pandemic but part of me hopes it doesn't. The talent that's being monopolized at companies like Apple and Tesla (making ventilators right now) could do a lot of good for healthcare to everyone's benefit.
To be clear, I'm not talking about Cook or Elon, but the genius engineers they've cultivated to work for them.
Surgical/cotton masks protect other people from your sneezing and breathing out aerosolized virus.
N95 masks do the same, but also protect you from 95% of particles that meet the following: "The particle size distribution will be a count median diameter of 0.185±0.020 micrometer and a geometric standard deviation not exceeding 1.6. Each respirator filter unit will be challenged with an aerosol concentration of 100 ± 10 mg/m3"
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.
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.
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.
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 μm) 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 μm 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.
I was imagining more of a face shield with a filtered blower at the top blowing air onto the shield. I imagine this would reduce the amount of air coming around the edges of the shield and hopefully increase the effectiveness of the shield. The PAPR definitely looks interesting, and surely more effective, but it has the drawback of probably being less comfortable.
I find masks uncomfortable. My face or nose itches. My glasses fog up. I feel like a face shield might be more comfortable.
If you’re looking at shields with fans you should just wear a mask. Take some anti-itch medication or ointment beforehand.
Based on what medical professionals are saying, regular shields aren’t going to protect you from normal aerosols. Social distancing is probably better for people coughing near you. And buying shields is only going to increase mortality for hospital workers.
Also, mild discomfort is a small price to pay compared to not infecting and killing people around you.
Shields have fairly promising results without fans. I cited some research to that effect above. The problem with the shield is that air flows around it, and that might be mitigated by fans blowing filtered air.
Social distancing is, axiomatically, not better for people coughing near me. If someone is coughing near me then social distancing has already failed. If I need to go to a grocery store, why shouldn't I consider wearing a shield?
Shields are made out of a sheet of plastic, which is not in short supply. If I needed to buy any it would not "increase the mortality for hospital workers".
Regarding mild discomfort being a small price to pay, you've misunderstood. The choice is not between mild discomfort and infecting people, but between mild discomfort and comfort. Obviously the latter is preferable, hence my curiosity about the shield and fans.
PPE worn by members of the public going about their everyday life is a premature optimisation, and it risks causing harm.
People wear PPE to protect them from specific things.
The specific thing you are protecting yourself from with Covid-19 is droplets that have been coughed from infected people into the air, and the droplets that then fall onto other surfaces.
So far we think these droplets are fairly large. There's a lot of talk in this thread about aerosolised, and that's tricky because there's no real definition of what that means. It's unlikely the drops caused by normal covid-19 coughing meet that definition though. So, these large drops don't travel far (maybe three metres), and they don't hang in the air for long before falling.
The most important thing you can do to protect yourself is stay at home. If you must travel outside you need to carefully and frequently wash your hands and maintain 2 metres distance from other people. Do not touch your face.
If you're doing that you'll get at best marginal protection from wearing PPE. But you only get that protection if you're wearing PPE correctly, and more importantly if you're taking it off correctly.
If you're not wearing PPE correctly you lose those marginal benefits. If you take it off incorrectly you not only lose the benefits but you increase your risk.
If PPE is causing you to take risky action, such as leaving your home when you'd otherwise stay in, then again you're increasing your risk.
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??
I don't understand why Apple telling Chinese factories to build PPE is helpful. There's massive worldwide demand for this stuff, the factories don't need apple's help to figure that out.
Depends. Imagine you're an Apple supplier. You're making money hand over fist, but to become a supplier to Apple you had to retool your entire factory floor, retrain a bunch of employees and basically sink a lot of capital into meeting the strict requirements. So you don't want to lose that contract. And you've probably had to sign some sort of exclusivity agreement for the privilege. I seem to recall that's not uncommon. So Apple's permission to manufacture other stuff is pretty helpful.
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."
A carpenter friend came up with a similar design a couple of weeks ago. His slides over the visor of a baseball cap. He sourced thin plastic sheets, created a form, then made thousands, and sold them all to an org in B.C., Canada. Great minds think alike.
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.
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.
As I read this post for the Apple Face Shield on support.apple.com, my girlfriend looked over my shoulder and said "Hmm. Well, it has a better keyboard than the MacBook Pro."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I don't know. But someone posted this in a previous comment, maybe it helps:
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
“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.