Categories
Health

How one can Purchase a Actual N95 Masks On-line

A year into the coronavirus pandemic, buying a high-performance medical mask online remains downright insane.

The most sought-after mask to protect against Covid-19 was the N95, the gold standard for pandemic protection, as it sits tight and filters out 95 percent of the particles in the air. Then there is the KN95 from China, a mask for medical personnel that also offers high filtration and sits a little looser.

But these masks were anything but easy to buy on the Internet. When the pandemic hit last year, they were immediately in short supply as healthcare workers and governments rushed to get them. The demand was so great that a gray market emerged for them.

But even after the range has improved, it is often not easy to find authentic N95s and KN95s online. This is because there are only a few brand manufacturers. Hence, it can be difficult to know which of the dozen of manufacturers are reliable. And counterfeiters continue to flood the market, even on trusted websites like Amazon.

The result is often frustration when wearing a high performance mask is more important than ever. Last week, federal health officials stressed that we must all have tight-fitting masks because of the rapidly spreading coronavirus variants.

“People don’t know what is legitimate and they don’t know which suppliers are legitimate,” said Anne Miller, executive director of Project N95, a nonprofit that helps people buy coronavirus protection equipment. “We have had this problem since the pandemic began.”

I recently spent hours comparing masks online and almost bought a pack of fakes on Amazon. Fortunately, I avoided falling into the trap and ended up finding legitimate, high quality masks from a trusted online retailer.

Along the way, I learned a lot about how to spot fraudulent mask lists and how to circumvent fake reviews. Here’s how to use real medical masks that will protect you and your loved ones.

My journey began on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. There I found diagrams of N95 and KN95 masks that the agency tested, including the make, model number, and filtration efficiency.

After some reading, I learned about the tradeoffs between the two types of masks. The N95’s usually have straps that are strapped across the back of the head, which makes them snug-fitting. It can be uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time.

The KN95, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency medical personnel, have ear loops for a tight fit that is slightly more comfortable than an N95. The disadvantage is that a little more air escapes from the KN95 than from the N95.

If you are frequently in high risk areas like hospitals, N95s may be more suitable. However, if you only need a protective mask for occasional use, e.g. B. an occasional visit to the grocery store, KN95 is likely sufficient.

After doing my research, I decided that a KN95 mask from Powecom, a Chinese brand, would be best for my purposes. The mask achieved a filtration efficiency of 99 percent in the CDC tests.

From there I went to Amazon, where I buy everything from dog food to batteries during the pandemic. Then things went wrong.

When I typed “Powecom KN95” into Amazon’s search box, the masks immediately showed up with a rating of 4.5 stars. I quickly clicked “Add to Cart”.

But before checking out, I scrolled down to read the reviews. There were roughly 130 – including a handful of one-star reviews from aggrieved buyers who said the masks were most likely counterfeit. I emptied my shopping cart.

How did I almost buy a fake? Saoud Khalifah, the founder of Fakespot, a company that offers tools to detect fake offers and reviews online, said a third party was likely to have taken control of product offerings and sold fakes to make quick money.

“It’s a bit of a wild west,” he said. “The normal consumers who shop at Amazon do not know that they have just bought a counterfeit mask. This is the biggest critical problem: you think it’s real and all of a sudden you get sick. “

Mr Khalifah presented other examples of questionable masks sold on Amazon:

  • A pack of 50 masks was featured on Amazon as the # 1 new release in women’s fashion scarves this week. Obviously, masks aren’t scarves, which was a giveaway for something wrong. The listing description also replaced all the letters A with accented characters. This was a technique that was used to bypass Amazon’s fraud detection systems, Khalifah said. Amazon removed the list after calling about it.

  • Another pack of 20 masks looked attractive and was described as approved by the CDC. It even had positive reviews with an average of 4.4 stars. However, the reviews indicated that most of the customers received the masks for free, which was likely an incentive to leave positive feedback. A lukewarm review from someone who paid for the product found the masks to be “thin and very, very large.”

  • Mr. Khalifah’s software also found that another pack of 100 masks that had unanimous five-star ratings had reviewers in the past for other brands.

Amazon said in a statement that it bans the sale of counterfeit products and is investing to ensure its guidelines are followed. There were specific guidelines for N95 and KN95 masks, including a procedure for reviewing inventory and taking action for those who have sold counterfeits.

Amazon also said it looked at the questionable Powecom mask I almost bought, as well as the mask advertised as a scarf. There was no evidence that the pack of 20 masks was counterfeit and no comment on the pack of 100 masks.

Mr Khalifah warned that the fakes he spotted on Amazon might as well be found on websites of other large retailers like Walmart and eBay, where third-party sellers can ship products. In order to buy authentic masks, I should be less traditional when shopping online.

Armed with this advice, I continued my search for the Powecom mask.

I visited the manufacturer’s website for steps to verify the authenticity of a mask. To do this, a barcode on the packaging had to be scanned with a telephone camera. I then did a web search for the mask that took me to bonafidemasks.com, an online retailer that shows records that it is an authorized distributor of Powecom masks in the United States.

That was more reassuring. So I ordered a pack of 100 for $ 99. When the package arrived in the mail, I scanned the barcodes to confirm their authenticity. You were the real deal.

Another way I could have gone was to order masks directly from the manufacturer. Verified mask manufacturers like DemeTech in Miami and Prestige Ameritech in Texas sell N95 through their websites.

However, ordering directly from a manufacturer is associated with other challenges. Often times, one has to buy a large amount to reduce costs.

What if you just want to buy a few to try on? Ms. Miller’s Nonprofit Project N95 buys bulk orders of masks and disassembles them so people can buy smaller batches. “It’s a very careful process,” she said.

In earnest.

Categories
Business

On-line playing is sending sports activities betting ETFs to file highs

ETF players will double in online gambling and sports betting arena in 2021.

Betting interest has increased during the coronavirus pandemic, and a week after the Super Bowl LV, related ETFs are on a record run.

There are currently two main funds that offer centralized exposure to gaming and sports betting – the Roundhill Sports Betting & iGaming (BETZ) and the VanEck Vectors Gaming ETF (BJK). Both started last year and have quickly reached record highs.

BETZ in particular has increased by 96% since it was launched in early June.

VanEcks ETF offers a more traditional mix of casino stocks and gambling names – including Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands – that have been hit by travel and leisure issues. BETZ is a worldwide pure game with digital gaming stocks like online bookmaker PointsBet, Canadian betting company Score Media and even a handful of SPACs that focus on sports betting technology and data providers.

Roundhill Sports Betting & iGaming ETF (BETZ) Top Holdings (% Weighting)
Related group 5.2%
PointsBet Holdings 4.8%
Penn National Gaming 4.5%
DraftKings 4.4%
Score Media and Gaming 4.2%

The BETZ fund has grown to more than $ 350 million in total assets under management in just seven months, and has posted inflows of $ 146 million so far this year.

Will Hershey, Co-Founder and CEO of Roundhill Investments, said the industry has been in hyper-growth mode (PASPA) since sports betting was legalized at the federal level in the US in 2018 with the repeal of the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.

Record bets on Super Bowl weekend

It should come as no surprise that Super Bowl Sunday sparked an extra dose of intense betting activity. It’s the biggest betting day of the year for both Las Vegas sports betting and online betting shops – and it’s no different for the world of ETFs.

The numbers have grown from state to state, and the latest totals show that $ 444 million of regulated wagers were placed on the big game, with seven states still to report.

That’s already a total of $ 300 million last year and marks a record high or a bet on a single event. PlayUSA analysts expect the final balance sheet this year to top legal Super Bowl betting over $ 500 million – and that doesn’t include billions more coming in on black markets and unregulated sports books.

U.S. sports betting revenue is projected to reach $ 2.5 billion in 2021 and grow to $ 8 billion by 2025.

What is driving the rapid expansion? Hershey cites the ubiquitous shift from stationary to mobile and online services, as well as a major expansion of legalization across the country.

State legalization

More and more states like Tennessee and Virginia, which placed their first online sports betting in January, are getting online with legal sports betting.

“We expect the US market to mature and more states to go online. That will change and mean income for sports betting operators,” Hershey said on CNBC’s “ETF Edge” last week. “But perhaps more importantly, it will mean tax money for lawmakers.”

Sports betting has been legalized in some form in 21 states, including New Jersey, Nevada and Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC. However, some of the largest states – California, Florida, and Texas – have yet to follow.

Still, Hershey insists we are in the early stages of legalization and expects 10-12 more states to go online this year.

Kick-off for legalization

According to Hershey, it makes perfect sense for states to approve sports betting to fill the budget gap caused by the pandemic and generate additional tax revenue.

“I really think what is going on here, similar to what is going on in the cannabis industry, is that there are significant budget deficits at the state level, even at the state level,” Hershey said. “We’re just getting started. If we look at the opportunity for US markets [alone]We’re talking $ 20 billion to $ 30 billion in terms of the total addressable sports betting market. “

With the rapid rise of players like DraftKings and FanDuel, interest in sports betting has shifted dramatically from daily fantasy sports to live betting – but Hershey believes that most of the real money will continue to flow into online casinos, with sports books mostly the Drive customer acquisition.

A game of blackjack would still offer higher margins and much more predictable revenue than, say, this year’s Super Bowl, where Tom Brady and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense stunned sports fans by giving the Kansas City Chiefs a 31-9 blowout loss gifts.

“Who could have seen this coming?” Said Hershey. “You have to do that as sports betting. Live betting technology will be so advanced that we won’t even talk about the next 10 minutes, but rather whether the next field will be a curve or a fastball. I think this will be real monetization opportunities open when the technology gets to that point. “

Some skeptics may oppose the idea of ​​gambling online or buying more pot to balance the national budget, but Dave Nadig, director of research at ETF Trends, said he saw tax history as inevitable.

“Certainly the legalization of cannabis was a big part of it the demand for tax revenue at the state and local level,” he said in the same “ETF Edge” interview. “I think we will honestly see the same thing in anything we have previously regulated as a ‘sin activity’, such as gambling.”

Bottom line: when it comes to hot, lively topics associated with gamification trends, ETF investors are right there.

Disclosure: CNBC’s parent company Comcast and NBC Sports are investors in FanDuel.

Disclaimer of liability

Categories
Business

Parler, a Social Community That Attracted Trump Followers, Returns On-line

SAN FRANCISCO – Parler, the social network that attracted millions of Trump supporters before it disappeared from the internet, is a month after Amazon and other tech giants called the company over for calling for violent calls during the time of the Capitol uprising have cut off, back online.

The icing on the cake by the tech giants made Parler a special event for conservatives who complained that they were being censored, as well as a test case for the openness of the internet. It was unclear whether the social network, which positioned itself as a free speech and easily moderated website, could survive after being blacklisted by major tech companies.

For weeks the answer seemed to be no. But on Monday, for the first time since January 10, typing parler.com into a web browser returned a page to log into the social network – a move that had taken the small company to work for weeks and led to its exit had its chairman.

Parler executives did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday.

It was unclear how Parler figured out how to host its website on computer servers, the central technology on which every website is based. Many of the major web hosting companies had previously declined. For other services required to run a large website, Parler relied on the help of a Russian company that once worked for the Russian government and a firm in Seattle that once supported a neo-Nazi site.

Parler’s return seemed like a win for small businesses challenging the dominance of big tech. The company had tried to question the power of companies like Amazon, which are no longer hosting Parler’s website on their computer servers, and Apple and Google, which are removing Parler’s mobile app from their app stores.

Parler had become a hub for right-wing conversation over the past year as millions of right-wing people came to the platform over what they perceived as censoring conservative voices through Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Much of Parler’s content was harmless, but months before the January 6th Capitol uprising, the website also posted calls for violence, hate speech and misinformation.

Days after the uprising, Amazon, Apple and Google said they cut Parler off because it showed it couldn’t consistently enforce its own rules against violent posts. Apple and Google have announced that they will allow Parler’s app to return if the company can demonstrate that it can effectively monitor its social network.

After Amazon Parler booted from its web hosting service, Parler sued him, charged him with antitrust violations, and broke his contract. A federal judge said last month that Amazon’s contract allowed the service to terminate and declined to force the company to continue hosting Parler, as the start-up requested.

Parler had more than 15 million users when it went offline and was one of the fastest growing apps in the United States. It is largely funded by Rebekah Mercer, one of the Republican Party’s greatest benefactors.

John Matze, Parler’s co-founder and chief executive officer, said earlier this month that Ms. Mercer had effectively fired him because of a disagreement about running the website. Ms. Mercer has hired Mark Meckler, a leading voice in the tea party movement, to lead Parler.

Categories
Business

On-line procuring results in pressure at Port of Los Angeles

The number of shipments delivered through the country’s busiest container port complex in Los Angeles has increased significantly from the first half, driven by a recovery in business and a change in consumer habits.

Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said during an appearance on CNBC on Monday that cargo volume increased 50% in the second half of 2020 after arriving at the docks in the first six months of the year, and that loaded ships often anchor at sea waiting for a dock to open.

“It’s all the change in the American consumer,” Seroka said on Power Lunch. “We don’t buy services, we buy goods.”

The surge in shipments has put a strain on the seaport supply chain, which is managed by the Los Angeles Port Authority. It’s a stark contrast to spring, when volume plummeted as the coronavirus pandemic plunged the global economy into recession.

With retailers seeing a surge in online ordering and e-commerce in the world of stay-at-home, it has created long delays in unloading ships at ports across the country and a lack of desired storage space.

Seroka said the port expects demand to surge. The Port of Southern California has been the busiest container port in North America for the past two decades, welcoming 17% of all US cargo.

In November, the Port of Los Angeles saw 890,000 shipments, equivalent to 20 feet, passing through its facilities, up 22% from the same month last year, partly due to vacation orders. Imports from Asia are at a record level, announced the port authority. Meanwhile, exports at the port have declined in 23 of the last 25 months, partly due to trade policy with China.

“In addition to trade policy, it is the strength of the US dollar that makes our goods a bit more than would otherwise be the case for competing nations in the same product categories,” Seroka said. “And right now the most amazing statistic is that we are sending back twice as many empty boxes as we are American exports through our docks.”

Monthly cargo volumes averaged 930,000 units in 20 foot units since August, which Seroka called “unusual” at the end of the year. The activity is expected to last several months.

Seroka said the port has been focusing on digitization to streamline shipping schedules and logistics.

“The port is tense,” he said.

Categories
Business

10 States Accuse Google of Abusing Monopoly in On-line Adverts

Ten attorneys general on Wednesday accused Google of illegally abusing its monopoly over the technology used to display ads online, adding to the company’s legal troubles with a case at the heart of its business.

Prosecutors said Google was overloading publishers for the ads that were running on the internet, crowding out competitors trying to question the company’s dominance. They also said that Google had an agreement with Facebook to curtail the social network’s own efforts to compete with Google for advertising dollars. Google said the suit was “unfounded” and would fight the case.

“If the free market were a baseball game, Google would position itself as the pitcher, batsman, and referee,” Texas attorney general Ken Paxton said in a video on Twitter announcing plans for the suit.

The complaint filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas adds to the fierce bipartisan backlash against one of the largest tech companies in the country. Regulators in the US and Europe have focused on the oversized role Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google play in the modern economy, and everything from the way we shop to the information and entertainment that is available we see shaped.

In October, the Justice Department and eleven states said Google illegally maintained a monopoly over online search engines and the ads in user results. Another case against Google, filed by a separate group of states, is expected shortly. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission and more than 40 states accused Facebook of illegally suppressing competition by acquiring younger rivals, arguing that the company should be wound up. Apple and Amazon are also under federal antitrust investigations.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, is the first by regulators in the US to focus on the tools that connect ad space buyers with publishers who sell them. Ads make up a large part of business profits. The Justice Department has its own antitrust investigation into advertising technology, said one person with knowledge of the investigation.

Prosecutors asked for fines and structural changes in the company, but did not add any details.

The prosecutors who signed the lawsuit are all Republicans and they are not expected to be part of the Justice Department’s proceedings against the company. The other states’ lawsuit against Google, which could be filed as early as Thursday, is expected to be signed by Republicans and Democrats and could be combined with the federal agency’s case.

Google’s own system of selling ads on the Internet was built over more than a decade. In 2007, Google bought DoubleClick, which offered advertising technology and acted as a marketplace, in a business that has since been criticized as central to Google’s dominance. Google now controls the software at every step of the ad sales process.

The company competes with a wide variety of competitors when it comes to offering advertising technology, and its services work alongside those of its competitors. In the past few years, companies like AT&T and Amazon have been trying to break into the online ad sales market.

“Attorney General Paxton’s ad-tech claims are unfounded, but he carried on despite all the facts,” said a Google spokeswoman, Julie McAlister. “We will defend ourselves emphatically against his unfounded claims in court.”

Publishers like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation have long claimed that Google’s dominance allows the company to make a bigger cut on every sale without adding to the cost of content creation. Google’s success contrasts sharply with shrinking newsrooms and the closure of many local newspapers. This year, Google announced that news publishers would receive more than $ 1 billion through a new licensing program over the next three years.

After attaining a monopoly, Google was able to pressure publishers for a high proportion of every ad sold on its platforms, according to prosecutors.

“The monopoly tax that Google imposes on American companies – advertisers such as clothing brands, restaurants and brokers – is a tax ultimately borne by American consumers through higher prices and lower quality of the goods, services and information provided by these companies,” they said in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues that Google used a variety of tactics to become the dominant player in online advertising, hurting publishers, competitors and consumers in the process.

Prosecutors said that after purchasing DoubleClick, Google “quickly began to leverage its new position”.

They said Google then tried to destroy a process developed by publishers to create more competition in the online ad market. Under this system, publishers could sell ad space on more online marketplaces at the same time, making them less dependent on Google’s ad technology.

The states said Google maintained its dominance in part through an agreement with Facebook to limit the social network’s involvement in the process. In return, Google gave Facebook an advantage in other ad auctions it ran, the prosecutor said.

“Companies’ efforts to avoid competition have been successful,” they said in the lawsuit. Facebook, which did not immediately post a comment, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Ms. McAlister, the Google spokeswoman, said the allegations regarding Facebook were inaccurate. A Facebook representative declined to comment.

With the data behind many of the most popular services on the Internet, the two companies sit together on a treasure trove of data about what people are interested in, where they are going, and who they are interacting with. This information will help advertisers reach the right audience for marketing. Both companies also sell ads for their own websites.

According to research firm eMarketer, the two companies accounted for around 54 percent of digital advertising in the US in 2019. Google’s share was around 31 percent and Facebook’s 23 percent.

The publicly released version of the complaint is heavily edited and obscures important evidence that prosecutors cite to represent their case. However, the document refers to internal documents from Google and Facebook. In several places it is said that Google codenamed projects that were inspired by the Star Wars series, but the names themselves are black on the page.

The complaint widens the focus of lawsuits on Google’s business, said Charlotte Slaiman, director of competition policy at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that has campaigned for more regulation for Google.

“The strong market position that Google has in search has also helped them build that strong market position in advertising technology and that is part of that complaint,” said Ms. Slaiman. “It’s also an indication of how broad the competitive challenges are in big tech.

Mr Paxton led the investigation into Google despite allegations of abusing the power of his office. Seven of Mr. Paxton’s lawyers said this year that he had done a favor and bribed a friend and donor. The employees have since left Mr. Paxton’s office or have been on leave or dismissed immediately.

Mr. Paxton was also charged with securities fraud in 2015. He has denied these allegations, as well as recent allegations made by his own employees.

He’s also a prominent ally of President Trump, leading some critics to view his investigation into Google as part of a larger conservative campaign against the tech giants.

But Ms. Slaiman said she believed that there would ultimately be bipartisan support for the concerns raised in the lawsuit.

She hoped Washington lawmakers could respond to the concerns by passing laws to contain businesses, rather than leaving the task entirely to prosecutors.

“It is really important that antitrust law is enforced,” she said, “but much more is needed.

Maurice Stucke, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and co-author of “Competition Overdose,” said the online advertising industry is a place for regulators to look and noted that it is also attracting the attention of regulators in Australia has drawn France and Britain.

“In no other market is there a unit that represents most buyers, most sellers, and controls the leading exchange,” he said. “You can create a system that looks tough and competitive on the surface, but really isn’t.”

The allegations of collusion with Facebook were noticed, Stucke said, because such examples of anti-competitive behavior are usually viewed as the linchpin of strong antitrust proceedings – the kind of evidence that should interest more states and even the Justice Department.

Cecilia Kang contributed to the coverage.