$194 for hand sanitizer? You must be joking
reuters.com
reuters.com
If high demand persisted, the system would start producing more, but since we are fairly confident it won't, it becomes difficult for the producers to justify any additional capital outlay, limiting the rate at which they can spin up new supply.
The only other option available to the public that comes to mind is denatured alcohol and it's unclear whether there any risks related to skin absorption of the denaturing agents. Anybody know?
It seems doubtful that all alcohol would become scarce and also all Everclear from the liquor store, which isn’t really that expensive in bulk (1.75L of 95% EtOH for ~$35). Certainly cheaper than $160 hand sanitizer.
For cleaning hands, soap and water is more effective than alcohol based sanitizers and also very inexpensive.
Anyways, the pitfall with this approach is that rubbing alcohol is also sold out. At the Target near me, every single bottle of it is gone, along with all the hand sanitizer, most of the flu medicine, and almost all the Ibuprofen.
It's probably a local shortage. A few days ago, I had to fly to Washington DC and stopped at the Walgreens in downtown Chicago. They had tons of hand sanitizer in many container sizes; it wall all on sale - buy 1 get 1 for 50% off.
Places were groups of 100+ people are gathering should simply have a hand washing station near the entrance, outside the building. And we should all use them!
Commodity is available. Commodity is affordable.
Pick 1.
People who make fun of "doomsday preppers" and cast social opprobrium to those who chose to lengthen their own personal supply chain can go get fucked.
Zero sympathy to those who cry of shortages or price gouging, but thought it more prudent to buy NVDA at astronomically ridiculous earnings multiples than spend three dollars a week on a few extra household supplies at a time when said supplies were cheap.
With an insurance structure in place to provide funds during these situations, it would allow a quicker response without as much of a spike in prices. Companies could draw the funding for these increased costs from the insurance instead.
Futures trading is a prediction market. If you produce a commodity, you could, for example, place a sell order that is settled on a certain date in the future, and if you’re lucky, the market price will be below that of the price set in the order.
The buyer of the future will then purchase the commodity from you at the agreed price, or for cash settled futures, he’ll pay you the difference.
If the market price is higher, the difference is paid to the buyer, if the future is cash settled.
EDIT: Now, if you suspect price gouging, that's different. wtfrmyinitials was referring to a genuine shortage, though.
So the only way to "solve" the issue is to add more supply, and "price through the roof" is as good a way to get more supply (and possibly better) as the government mandating more production.
The only change to resource allocation we need is a psychological one: specifically, to accept the idea that prepping, even at a very small level, is not insane.
If there is gouging, that's definitely not the case.
Not to mention people are less likely to unnecessarily hoard years worth of supplies and prevent others from using it if it's more expensive.
Or maybe you're expecting it to not be a real shortage?
It's not that hard to have some extra cleaning supplies, non-perishable food, and water around. I don't understand the desire to have the government spend a multiple in tax dollars for what I could just keep in the house myself?
Sadly, whether you think it's 70% or 90% that could get themselves organized and take responsibility for their own security makes little difference in the real world because almost nobody actually does. The world went from victory gardens to big brother and people seem to prefer it this way.
Sometimes an ideal market is the worst possible thing.
First it was basic medical masks that went out of stock. Then people realised DIY/Building masks are the same if not better, they went out of stock. So the next step was half face respirators for spray painting. They are now either out of stock or overpriced.
Same thing with hand sanitizer. Wipes and small bottles. Then larger family sized ones, then industrial acohol cleaner and aloe vera.
Its very fascinating, its almost like early adopters vs. mass consumers.
This feels like the coronavirus-related version of that infamous Stack Exchange response where you say "I must do (thing) because of these requirements, what's the best way to do it" and people respond with "Don't do (thing), do (other thing which is arguably better but does not satisfy the requirements)"
The worst case scenario is we end up donating some non-perishable food to a food bank in 9 months or a year.
Protip #2: it comes in minibar-sized bottles.
Provided you don't live in a strangely puritan nation (I won't point fingers), this basically has no downsides.
95% isopropyl alcohol is even cheaper, and puritan-compatible. ;)
A thorough wash with soap and water is better, but harder to distribute around an office building, hotel, conference center, etc.
https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-san...
Soap is simpler and faster, if you can use it.
p. 11 "Alcohol-based solutions were more effective than washing hands with plain soap in all studies, and they reduced bacterial counts on the hands more than antimicrobial soaps or detergents in the majority of experiments"
https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/science/index.html
An alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred method for cleaning your hands when they are not visibly dirty because it:
-Is more effective at killing potentially deadly germs on hands than soap
-Is easier to use during the course of care, especially when moving from soiled to clean activities with the same patient or resident & when moving between patients or residents in shared rooms or common areas
-Improves skin condition with less irritation and dryness than soap and water
"Certain enveloped (lipophilic) viruses (e.g., herpes sim-plex virus, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], influenzavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and vaccinia virus) are susceptible to alcohols when tested in vitro"
Covid-19 is an enveloped virus, not a bacteria. Unfortunately relative efficacy compared to soap and water for these types of viruses doesn't appear to be discussed.
and
"Applying small volumes (i.e., 0.2–0.5 mL) of alcohol to the hands is not more effective than washing hands with plain soap and water (63,64). One study documented that 1 mL of alcohol was substantially less effective than 3 mL (91). The ideal volume of product to apply to the hands is not known and may vary for different formulations. However, if hands feel dry after rubbing hands together for 10–15 seconds, an insufficient volume of product likely was applied."
More or less saying that technique matters here, and a quick squirt of hand sanitizer may not do much. That being said, hand washing technique matters too: commonly poorly washed areas include between fingers, finger tips, under fingernails, and the thumb.
> "We urge retailers to behave responsibly throughout the coronavirus outbreak and not to make misleading claims or charge vastly inflated prices,"
Urging retailers isn't going to stop the train of capitalism. I applaud their optimism, though.
And there the idealism breaks down. Willing to pay more - which you always are if it becomes a life-or-death situation - does not mean able to pay more; able to pay more does not mean deserves it more.
Yes, but what's a good allocation metric for 'deserves' ? It's not an easily quantifiable metric.
Limits are legal, but sufficiently desperate people will do what it takes to get around them. A major component of the problem here is that neither you nor these stores can take their normal day-to-day experiences and apply them to black swan events like this. Your System 1 (bleh, what a terrible name that is....) heuristics are lying to you; you need to engage System 2 for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow