The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom • Hacker News Board

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#161

Post by Scoundreller » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

whitemary wrote: post #144

jethro_tell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, also, until we knew that it wasn't transmitted through the air, we should have been recommending masking with high quality masks. That right there could have changed the vector of this whole thing. Instead, 6 months in when we knew it was transmitted through air, we continued to make businesses sanitize their checkouts while people walked around in ineffective cloth masks. Really fucked the dog there.

Quality masks require actual capital investments, so longer term commitments. Toxic hand sanitizer can turn a profit with practically zero capital investment. This is precisely how capitalism works. Socialism or barbarism.

And proper planning and motivation. My jurisdiction (Ontario and Canada) stockpiled 10s of millions of N95 masks after SARS1. Instead of cycling inventory, they let them expire, disposed them and never replaced them.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6715814/coronavirus-n95-masks-ont...

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5530081

Then, get this, a few years later, they needed them!

Best part was I already worked at an organization that required mask fitting for all employees, but when the pandemic hit that this was in preparation for, everybody wanted them and there weren’t any available.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#162

Post by actuallyalys » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:44 PM UTC

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.

Here's a fuller quotation of the WHO tweet:

>FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.

>The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.

The WHO was unequivocally stating that Covid was not airborne, apparently meaning that they (wrongly) thought it was not spread through aerosols. Instead, they were saying it was spread through droplets. So they were wrong about how it spreads, but did not go as far as saying it wasn't spread through respiratory routes/air at all, which I think might be some people's interpretation of "The WHO said it was not airborne."

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#163

Post by actuallyalys » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:49 PM UTC

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…

Not sure about testing for benzene, but you can check the FDA's list of sanitizers that should not be used: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-u....

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#164

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

> Several fires involving large amounts of unsellable hand sanitizer have broken out across the country in the past year, from Dallas to downtown Los Angeles.

It's not quite clear why there have been so many fires, especially when we've been making and storing and shipping hand sanitizer in warehouses for a long time. Is it:

1) Something about these new companies wasn't following safety protocols, because they were new and/or rushing to market?

2) Existing safety protocols were being followed at the same rate, but the manufacturing and distribution network of hand sanitizers grew exponentially, and so fires grew along with it and this is a non-story?

3) The fires were a result of storing hand santizier intended for disposal rather than sale, so in different warehouses/locations that had different/less safety regulations or compliance?

4) The fires were set intentionally before the products were officially classified for disposal, so costs could be recouped through insurance fraud?

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#165

Post by Scoundreller » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

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.

I wonder if it’s any clearer now that hand sanitizer does jack shit for every other respiratory virus too, like influenza.

The “wash your hands” was a great way to blame victims for catching these diseases and push the liability to them.

Easy to say to an employee “you got the flu because you didn’t wash your hands for 5 minutes” and disqualify their paid sick day.

Much harder to blame them for… breathing at work. If we admit its airborne, then employees (and customers) have claims against the the business for work-acquired injuries.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#166

Post by dwringer » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:00 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #50

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.

Probably either forgot or it wasn’t worth the trouble since they were on a short drive between locations.

I would regularly leave my mask on in the car just from being too lazy to take it off and put it back on again in the span of 15 minutes. I definitely had a couple of instances where people who saw me drive by yelled something at me in anger about how I had it on. I am kinda surprised to see a similar complaint crop up in a thread on HN. I'd usually forget I had it on anyway. I guess some people count down the seconds until they can rip it off and have what they perceive as "freedom"?

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#167

Post by Scoundreller » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #132

purpleflame1257 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of gastrointestinal viruses (hello norovirus) are non-enveloped viruses and survive alcohol sanitizers.

And non-enveloped viruses (like Noro) aren’t easily inactivated by time and sunlight like other viruses (flu, corona).

Makes me really worry about dependence on alcohol sanitizers when it’s the difficult to deactivate viruses that easily pass the stomach and cause you bigger issues.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#168

Post by willcipriano » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:03 PM UTC

lisasays wrote: post #160

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It also says that it does protect you from other people's loads, albeit imperfectly. However everyone is tired of masking now, and prefers to forget this.

Phrasing

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#169

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:05 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #141

pixl97 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Does hand sanitizer stop other illness? Do you have any information supporting this possibility? Because hand sanitizer also might have made children stronger and taller, but I don't think it did.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5091001/

>Hand sanitizers are more effective than plain soap and water alone in preventing transmission of bacteria from the hands of individuals. They play a significant role and could be an effective alternative to hand washing to achieve asepsis for all the health-care professionals in outreach program, water scarcity areas, and in routine clinical practice. Hence, stressing proper hand hygiene is an important first-line defense against the spread of multiple infectious diseases.

Maybe looking up studies on this would be a good place to start...

Of course I'm sure that there is a wide range of different answers on this that vary over a huge number of factors and illnesses in question.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#170

Post by _a_a_a_ » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

acyou wrote: post #149

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one peculiarly shrill post. Can you explain your mention of "division, hatred, polarization, radicalization" related to this article? I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a very strange opinion and seemingly entirely disproportionate.

It's tough to explain. It's something to do with not standing on any particular side, but attempting to cast blame and start arguments. If you read through the HN comments, and think about the bigger picture and what will result from the publishing of the article, isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another? Hasn't the article done a great job of doing that, and is that not the primary effect of t…

> isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another?

I honestly just don't see it.

> People who believe one thing are also reading this article in resentment and despair. You don't think about them, but they are out there

Again, I struggle to see that. Saying "but they are out there" doesn't mean they actually are.

Look, I just don't get what you're saying. I know when my mental health problems kick in the world starts to distort and I can feel, to a lesser degree, something like what you're saying. It doesn't mean it's universally true, or even predominantly true. And I'm not saying you're wrong either, but... you leave me baffled. Are you seeing through a glass darkly?

(For the record you're worrying about methanol contamination – for the past 3 years I've been using methylated spirits as a hand sanitiser; 90% ethanol 10% methanol. I haven't had any problems)