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

131–140 of 310 posts

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#131

Post by dahfizz »

raverbashing wrote: post #113
dahfizz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> Most hand sanitizers were Ethanol or Rubbing Alcohol

You can't know that. The regulations and testing requirements were suspended, so companies were free to use benzene and nobody would know.

We already know for sure that some companies did use benzene, and its not hard to imagine companies switching to a cheaper, lower grade source for their alcohol.

In any case, the government simultaneously saying "Its okay to put benzene in hand sanitizer" and "Everyone should constantly disinfect with hand sanitizer" was not a good move.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#132

Post by pixl97 »

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #6
wewtyflakes wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on why you believe it was unproductive insanity?

Because it was clear early on that covid was not droplet transmission and that hand santizer did jack shit. But nobody would acknowledge this for ages, leading to other crazy shit like shutdown playgrounds.

> that hand santizer did jack shit.

Does hand sanitizer stop other illness?

If yes, then it is still very useful in a pandemic. If you have to go to the hospital because you're shitting your brains out from something else, then you are at insanely high right from catching covid.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#134

Post by hammock »

raverbashing wrote: post #113
dahfizz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

>it is a reaction grounded in the last hundreds of year of proper hygiene practice

You may find it interesting to learn the first national hand hygiene guidelines were not published until the 1980s

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#135

Post by acyou »

gowld wrote: post #107
acyou wrote: post #58

This issue is a wrecking ball being swung first this way, then the other way, to create division, hatred, polarization, radicalization and the feeling of being marginalized on all sides. Who benefits from consuming this article? Was it not mass media used as a primary vector to create the hysteria in the first place? And will the wheel not again soon turn, so that the criticized can criticize the criticizers from the…

Where is benzene in the Wired article?

I think that the source of the benzene and methanol might have been from hand sanitizer manufacturers buying raw input feedstocks (ethanol and glycerol) containing methanol and benzene from dubious sources. If that's the case, then making your own hand sanitizer by buying ethanol and glycerol from dubious (random online) sources (that Wired actually goes so far as to directly link to) would also put you at risk of inadvertently creating your own home-made hand sanitizer cocktail of ethanol, methanol, benzene and who knows what else.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#136

Post by pessimizer »

loeg wrote: post #110
GeekyBear wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In March, W.H.O. denied outright that Covid-19 was airborne, posting on social media, “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne,” and calling it “misinformation.” We and our colleagues, scientists and engineers who have studied airborne particles for our entire careers, met with W.H.O. in April 2020 to express our concern that airborne transmission was important in the spread of COVID-19. W.H.O. vehemently rejected our sugges…

I think you and others in this thread are reading that tweet significantly out of context.

I think you should make that case, rather than implying that a case could be made.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#137

Post by WeylandYutani »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #57
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.

Wow I guess I never found those comfortable and effective masks. Maybe people are different? What fits one doesn't fit another? It's fun to earn internet points by claiming to be astonished at how dumb others are, and how much we have figured things out. Maybe after several years of this, the game is growing old. Tolerance, understanding, consideration used to be virtues. But not internet virtues I guess.

There is comfortable. And there is effective.

The two don't match.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#138

Post by nradov »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #112
dabluecaboose wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've got to be kidding. That's just irrational germophobia. The microbes that might be carried on the surface of groceries are of zero risk to healthy people. You're exposed to a wide range of pathogens all the time without even noticing. In developed countries it's rare to find pests in store bought groceries, and even if you do so what? Eating a worm in your apple won't do you any harm. I would be more concerned about the pesticides than the pests.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#139

Post by wincy »

RC_ITR wrote: post #39
wincy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw someone driving alone in their car wearing a mask two days ago. I live in Kansas.

Usually that person is an Uber driver between fares.

Maybe! I haven’t driven with an Uber driver in the last year that was wearing a mask. Then again the only places I’ve been to in the last year are Florida and Kansas so it’s for sure not representative of the nation as a whole.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#140

Post by jrockway »

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 (…

For me the best effect of masking was keeping my hands out of my mouth. I love chewing on those things, which have touched God Knows What disease sources. Put a mask on, no longer physically possible. 3 years without being sick. Who can complain.
Post reply on HN