Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 310 posts

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#111

Post by dahfizz »

14 wrote: post #62
loeg wrote: post #3

Tl;dr: ArtNaturals made hand sanitizer with very high levels of benzene (a carcinogen) and after a fire and runoff into the Dominguez Channel, produced a bunch of hydrogen sulfide (the "rotten eggs" smelling gas). When the FDA reimposed pre-pandemic sanitizer rules, companies were forced to dispose of the crap they produced under the lax rules. Some tried to do so by giving it away to schools or illegally dumping it…

Now I am a little uneasy about the sanitizer I bought. I walked into Walmart one day and they had these giant bottles of liquid hand sanitizer with a 80% alcohol content and it works great and doesn’t leave a residue. It was on for 25cents a bottle when normally something that size would sell for about $8. I couldn’t believe they were getting rid of it for so cheap so bout about 100 bottles and have been using it for…

Are you currently desperate for hand sanitizer? I would just buy some good stuff or go without. I would rather risk a little sniffles than leukemia.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#112

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #16
Footkerchief wrote: post #7

Just one aspect of the huge, tragicomic waste that resulted from the medical establishment's position that airborne transmission couldn't be real because it reminded everyone too much of miasma theory. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.13070

Looking back, it was crazy how much emphasis was placed on surface transmission. I remember people talking about wiping down grocery boxes left in front of their door with hand sanitizer and leaving it to sit for 72 hours before bringing it inside.

Arguably, there may be something to this in general, because grocery stores are gross, and people handle the product in unsanitary ways, so perhaps these are good precautions even in the best of times.

Even without microbial infections of grocery product, you do have to contend with pest insects such as roaches, weevils, and gnats infesting groceries. Quarantining them separately is a good way to carefully inspect to show that you're not bringing new pests into the home.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#113

Post by raverbashing »

dahfizz wrote: post #103
jquery wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's akin to a master caution alarm on a plane and the engines just cut out. Until there's more data on exactly what the issue is, pilots should generally follow the checklists. Avoidable accidents happen when pilots make assumptions about what is wrong (e.g., "oh my instruments must be incorrect") instead of following their checklists/training. Until we knew that surface transmission wasn't a serious vector, it made…

> Until we knew that surface transmission wasn't a serious vector, it made total sense to guard against it. But at what cost? We knew that benzene is toxic. Wiping down every surface with a toxic chemical without knowing if it even helps against covid is much more of an emotional/fearful reaction than a rational one, IMO.

Most hand sanitizers were Ethanol or Rubbing Alcohol

> Wiping down every surface with a toxic chemical without knowing if it even helps against covid is much more of an emotional/fearful reaction

No, it is a reaction grounded in the last hundreds of year of proper hygiene practice

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#114

Post by slily »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #94
slily wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some nuance there. The situation was not nearly as "unknown" as the CDC advocates would like to believe, and the international community provided plenty of evidence for individuals to make more informed decisions. Even early on, the number of case reports of people getting sick despite following recommended practices or not having any contact with potentially contaminated objects made the droplet thesis dubio…

We are remembering things differently. I do not remember any consensus on these items within the first year of the pandemic. I remember things being uncertain. I think demanding vaccines for travel was reasonable, given the circumstances of the time. I do not think the mandates were pointless given what we knew at the time, and I think people who flouted them acted selfishly.

I can see how you'd get that impression if you followed the news through mainstream media and government spokespersons who stoked fear and uncertainty to push their recommendations, but I paid close attention to research and data, and there were countless instances of health authorities peddling obvious falsehoods, some of which I've already mentioned.

I traveled freely internationally throughout 2020 before a blanket ban was implemented to force people to get vaccinated. Of course, by that time, the virus was circulating everywhere, so it already made little sense, but it's even worse when you consider that long-distance travel was not a significant vector for viral spread (at that stage). If I recall correctly, the Canadian government admitted in court that their own travel ban had no scientific basis. In the US, the health authorities issued recommendations based on weak or absent data and then refused to withdraw them until the amount of data disproving those recommendations became overwhelming. That's a double standard and can hardly be justified with "uncertainty".

I'll add that many people pointed out the inconsistencies between government recommendations/policies and the available evidence at the time, and in response, they were fired, hidden or banned from social media, attacked, and demonized. Now history is being rewritten, but "in hindsight" there were plenty of warnings at all stages of this crisis.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#115

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

lisasays wrote: post #84
pfannkuchen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they mask then? It seems a little hard to psychologically disentangle what one does for social approval vs for other reasons. For example, maybe it feels emotionally uncomfortable to not mask. Is it because the subconscious is worried about disease, or because the subconscious is worried about social approval? Probably some of both, but if we removed one perhaps the external behavior would change, hard to tell…

I think you're overthinking this, especially as to hidden psychological motivations. The primary reason some people still mask is very simple: For anyone who follows basic science, not what the crowd is doing -- N95 masks in enclosed / crowded situations are still a good idea, especially for those of a certain age. Many people continue to wear useless (or only marginally) useful masks, and in non-crowded situations (…

"The basic science" says that masking protects other people if I am infected with a comparatively high viral load and I am prone to sneezing or coughing unprotected. The basic science tells me to stay home when that happens because I am not fit for public appearances.

Normal people stay home when they're sick, they don't infect others, and the basic science takes care of that just fine. If crazy people want to follow "basic science" and mask up and go out in public while they're carrying an infectious viral load, then I guess we're in Japan or something.

If "basic science" compels the general populace to mask up, even when we're uninfected, unexposed, vaccinated, and asymptomatic, then I feel sorry for basic science because it's jumped the shark.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#116

Post by raverbashing »

MyHypatia wrote: post #86
buildsjets wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What amazes me is that some people choose to continue 100% masking for various reasons, but wear ineffective or poor fitting cloth masks or generic flat surgical masks with huge gaps, when comfortable and effective N95s from name brands are readily and inexpensively available. Or they just chin-diaper.

There are lots of reasons I continue to mask that have nothing to do with COVID. 1) To keep the sun off my face. 2) if there is a lot of pollen or dust in the air. 2) If I want to avoid long chats at the checkout counter that waste my time. 3) If I want to avoid having creeps tell me to smile or catcall.

You're absolutely correct

But just use a proper N95 mask, it's even easier to breath than other masks

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#117

Post by ycombinete »

buildsjets wrote: post #48
floren wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I live in the Bay Area, and my neighbors still do this shit .

What amazes me is that some people choose to continue 100% masking for various reasons, but wear ineffective or poor fitting cloth masks or generic flat surgical masks with huge gaps, when comfortable and effective N95s from name brands are readily and inexpensively available. Or they just chin-diaper.

You just described the entire audience at this summers Games Done Quick event. I think they’ve mandated masks there for some reason.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#118

Post by GeekyBear »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #68
lisasays wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may make you feel comfortable to believe that's why they mask. But (knowing many people who still mask, under varying circumstances) -- that's not why they mask.

Why do they mask then? It seems a little hard to psychologically disentangle what one does for social approval vs for other reasons. For example, maybe it feels emotionally uncomfortable to not mask. Is it because the subconscious is worried about disease, or because the subconscious is worried about social approval? Probably some of both, but if we removed one perhaps the external behavior would change, hard to tell…

> Why do they mask then?

Disposable/cloth masks that do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of an airborne disease like Covid do still work with diseases (like the Flu) with a droplet based spread.

> CDC says seasonal flu cases hit record lows around the world

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasona...

The problem was the cult of people claiming that a disposable/cloth mask could be effective against an airborne disease, and being exceptionally hateful to anyone who wouldn't go along with this view.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#119

Post by ycombinete »

ianai wrote: post #71
Krssst wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried two kind of N95. One (actually KF94) uses the ears or the neck for support but ends up either hurting my ears or my nose. The second (3m aura) has two elastics that go around the head, splitting the load, and some padding around the nose. I find those very comfortable although I guess the airtightness could be an issue for some people. Just in case you never tried it and the pandemic situation starts warranti…

Maybe I’m just lucky. Or maybe I’m just used to being uncomfortable from the decades of fighting migraines sans modern medicine. But I pretty easily wore N95s at work for entire shifts at times. Yes there are annoyances but I’ll take it over even getting the common cold or flu.

Why did you fight them without medicine?

More importantly how did you do it? I have tinnitus and almost all painkillers are ototoxic (I.e. they can make tinnitus worse). So I’m always in a catch 22 when it comes to treating my migraines.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#120

Post by majormajor »

revelio wrote: post #51
buildsjets wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What amazes me is that some people choose to continue 100% masking for various reasons, but wear ineffective or poor fitting cloth masks or generic flat surgical masks with huge gaps, when comfortable and effective N95s from name brands are readily and inexpensively available. Or they just chin-diaper.

Why is that amazing? Masking is a social phenomenon at this point. It's about showing other people what sort of person you are, not about the mask itself.

Is this a thing in red states and areas? Like masking as a "fuck you I'm different?" signal?

Because around me in super-liberal-coastal-land practically nobody masks, and the ones I know personally who sometimes do have underlying reasons to be more cautious (e.g. relatives undergoing nasty cancer treatments and such that they don't want to spread anything to). It's been like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 people at the gym I go to, for instance, this year. Or look at the crowds in the recent NBA playoff games.

Post reply on HN