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

231–240 of 310 posts

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#231

Post by gordian-mind »

zvmaz wrote: post #225
VancouverMan wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious fearmongering and irrationality, especially from so-called "experts", was quite intense and prolific in Canada, too. Even as early as June of 2020, the public health authority in Canada's most-populous city (fourth highest population in North America) revealed that the counting of deaths was being done using a methodology that sounds quite dubious: "Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a re…

> The obvious fearmongering and irrationality, especially from so-called "experts", was quite intense and prolific in Canada, too. So much death and suffering and bereavement and sorrow the scale of which I have never witnessed in my entire life and I still read comments like these. Baffling! A more serious take: excess deaths worldwide put us at 20+ millions deaths [1]. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/c…

This is bogus data, they took the officially reported numbers -- which were insane because they reported 'covid deaths' without taking into account comorbidities --, and quadrupled them for 'reasons'.

> So much death and suffering and bereavement and sorrow the scale of which I have never witnessed in my entire life and I still read comments like these. Baffling!

You should be ashamed of yourself for this hyperbole, you people have ruined many young people's lives for nothing, the least you could do is apologize. And this habit of constantly looking for numbers that are always wrong and feeding into your taste for impending doom is the greatest setback to science and the rational spirit I have ever witnessed in my entire life.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#232

Post by marcosdumay »

jethro_tell wrote: post #60
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…

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.

> That right there could have changed the vector of this whole thing.

Keep in mind the disease was already all over the world when it was discovered.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#233

Post by crazygringo »

emodendroket wrote: post #199
crazygringo wrote: post #164

> 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 n…

This seems suggestive... isn't it likely that some of the contaminants they let slide were more combustible? > On March 20, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it was relaxing its regulations on hand sanitizer to “provide flexibility to help meet demand during this outbreak.” Those regulations, known as the Current Good Manufacturing Practices, had been in place since 1994 and included regularly update…

I don't think so. The main ingredient ethanol is already plenty combustible enough.

The article describes the additional toxins as simply that -- poisonous toxins that you don't want to put in your hands or dump down creeks. Not any indication that they're more flammable than ethanol.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#234

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

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.

When masking was first being mandated, I watched a science-guy video as he demonstrated how to properly handle a mask, donning and doffing, shaping the nosepiece, disinfection for reusable masks, etc.

Then I saw reality, where a medical professional would politely remove her mask to sneeze.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#235

Post by marcosdumay »

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

I have seen a lot of people using benzene and toluene, or ammonium cleaners at the beginning. There was a consensus that domestic ethanol-based sanitizers didn't work, and at least around here, an entire new line of them had to be created.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#236

Post by [deleted] »

hn976827 wrote: post #217
lisasays wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#237

Post by lisasays »

GeekyBear wrote: post #221
lisasays wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not "absolutely nothing", according to research I've seen. Just not very much.

A disposable mask with open sides cannot possibly filter particles that small out of the air you breathe. However, it can catch the comparatively large droplets you produce when someone with the Flu coughs or sneezes. Which explains why global Flu cases (with a droplet based spread) fell to all time lows while Covid (fully airborne) continued to spread like wildfire.

A disposable mask with open sides cannot possibly filter particles that small out of the air you breathe.

From basic physics -- of course it can. They don't work particularly well, but they do partly obstruct small droplet flow. In any case, there are easily findable studies about this asserting that even that crap-ola disposable masks have at least some measurable efficacy.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#238

Post by rtsil »

slily wrote: post #73
rtsil wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still use them (and masks). I haven't had a cold, the flu or any of the usual seasonal sicknesses in 3 years, and this spring my pollen allergy was nowhere to be seen. My quality of life is significantly better ever since I started using them. Washing my hands for 30 seconds at least also helps.

Neither have I, outside of COVID-19-delta, and I haven't followed any recommendation (outside of wearing a cloth mask indoors when required). How do you know it's not a coincidence?

It can always be a coincidence, but I would get colds regularly (twice a year at least) and pollen allergy, sometimes severe ones, for decades. Plus some coughing and other transmissible sicknesses. That all that has stopped since 2020 at the same time as I started wearing masks and washing my hands very frequently would be an extraordinary coincidence.

Even if we exclude 2020 and 2021 as freak years because my interpersonal interactions have been drastically minimized, that still leaves one year and half.

I haven't had Covid either, and neither did my partner, and it could also be a coincidence and not related at all to our strict masking and constant ventilation policy, but again that would be an extraordinary coincidence.

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#239

Post by lesuorac »

marcosdumay wrote: post #230
lesuorac wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like them to go on the record on if they weren't fired what they would've done differently. In hindsight, we had vaccines created and in testing 5 days [1] after the WHO called that virus a pandemic [2]. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5 [2]: https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments...

I understand nobody rushed the vaccine tests any more because nobody could produce it on the amount necessary. The tests were run faster than normal, and "coincidentally" all finished at about the same time the manufacturers could supply it.

Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. But the trials should end around the same time the manufactures can supply it.

If you can manufacture a vaccine that you cannot sell then you have wasted production space. Like the trials had a pre-determined duration so if you know the trial ends in August and you know it takes 1 month to staff up the production line then at the end of June check the preliminary data and make a call to staff up the factory in anticipation of the trial succeeding.

But in order for the vaccines to be in a trial (testing) by March they had to have already been in development before March, I suspect a lot of these companies decided in like January/February to start staffing people to work on a vaccine; how and why would that have been faster if those federal people weren't fired?

Re: The explosive legacy of the hand sanitizer boom

#240

Post by junofan »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #188
hedora wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with hindsight. We've known for decades that hand sanitizer (and antibiotic soap) kills off the beneficial bacteria on your hands, and also dries out skin, increasing the percentage of pathogens that survive contact with skin, and also increasing the percentage that manage to get past skins' protective barriers. We also knew that coronavirus was airborne well before 2019. The medical and microb…

So, am I re-reading your post correctly. That since we dealt with dozens of pandemics, we should what? Do nothing? or Wait to 'figure out which people' get sick, then react? But wouldn't people then already be getting sick and thus already too late to quarantine? This whole line of reasoning is based on 'hindsight', you're fantasizing about past decisions with current knowledge.

We should plan better for the next mild respiratory pandemic instead of listening again to people making ridiculous shit up on the spot.
Post reply on HN