Lysol Is Making More Sanitizer Than Ever. In Pandemic America, It’s Not Enough | Hacker News Reader

Lysol Is Making More Sanitizer Than Ever. In Pandemic America, It’s Not Enough

bloomberg.com

34 pointslxm41 comments

It’s shocking to me that nine months into this thing I have no idea if fomite transmission is something worth worrying about. And that an article like this doesn’t even bother to try to summarize the case that aggressive use of sanitizers like Lysol will actually cut transmission vs. simply kill the virus on surfaces where it might not matter.

Nine months! What a colossal failure of epidemiology and public health.

Don't expect any answers to practical questions when there's a neurotic narrative to promote. Hygiene theater for everyone!

Why would a product ad include information that may negatively affect sales? :)

The fomite discussion is definitely worth more studies

Though to be honest, it seems a lot of people underwash their hands, and the sanitizer might help with other diseases

They're not all the same month! I think there was an emerging consensus by summer that surface transmission wasn't a priority concern, but now that the weather is changing and with it the humidity, there's a lot more uncertainty.

Surface transmission is almost certainly an extremely unlikely vector for COVID-19. I tried doing some research the other day, and could find no information supporting the notion that surface transmission is likely. It’s also telling that the CDC’s guidelines for initiating quarantine are solely based on physical proximity to someone with covid for an extended period.

That said, if others have found evidence that surface transmission is likely (or even possible), I would love to see that evidence. Now that we are quite a ways into the pandemic, there should be some scientific consensus emerging on how/where transmission is likely.

Is anyone else confused or put off by the term "fomite"? It has such an odd sound/etymology, isn't used in anything close to daily language, and doesn't sound like something to do with surface droplets or particles that transmit disease. I would think a different word could help popularize awareness better.

Perhaps in verbal conversation it makes sense to define it in place, but we're on the internet. Just highlight the word and search it. I wouldn't say that in most contexts, but considering the demographic here, a lot of conversation would be bogged down if we were defining more obscure terms for each other every time they come up.

Either way, the comment is about how we don't exactly know whether fomite transmission is cause for concern, so popularizing awareness doesn't seem necessary (at least until that question is answered in the affirmative).

If the majority need to search something to understand your message, that is not a communications success. I am all for telling people to look it up, but most people realistically are not going to do that.

Gotta educate yourself. No one else can do it for you. 5 secs of google search led me to the following site. Although, few months ago, I also read a similar statement here on HN that COVID does not spread from surface to surface but it's not completely ruled out.

> Droplets can also land on surfaces and objects and be transferred by touch. A person may get COVID-19 by touching the surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes. * Spread from touching surfaces is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. *

Source - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Spread

The NY Times had an article that the virus doesn’t really spread on surfaces: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/world/asia/covid-cleaning...

Am I odd or just a former biochemist? I just use bottles of isopropyl alcohol around the house with paper towels and don't need all this Lysol/ammonium stuff that leaves semi-sticky residue and film everywhere. Alcohol was scarce for a while but last 2 months you see it getting restocked more reliably.

The grocery store I shop at has several dozen large bottles of alcohol hand sanitizer on the discount table, marked down about 80%. They've been there for a couple of weeks. Either they're not selling well even at a discount or they keep restocking the discount table with a larger overstock in the backroom.

There is a glut of hand sanitizer nobody wants. It isn't as useful as plain alcohol.

Same, I worked in bioscience labs and I also just use spray bottles of isopropanol around the house, just like what I used in the lab. If it's good enough for working with human tissues and infectious HIV derivatives, it's good enough for my kitchen counters.

Sometimes I add a few drops of lavender essential oil if I want to feel fancy.

Does it dry your hands? I read when this started you should mix it with aloe vera or some such so your skin doesn't dry out.

Maybe a little, but just for momentary cleaning it's not a big issue. Wash hands and put on some lotion afterwards anyway. Just don't clean for 30 minutes without gloves on. It gets absorbed through skin (like all solvents).

Regarding aloe, I prefer no extra stuff in the cleaning solution that gets deposited all over whatever I'm trying to clean.

Yes, there are simpler approaches, but not all surfaces are compatible with isopropanol.

That's true -- just be careful with some plastics/rubber surfaces that may get degraded by alcohol. But generally in the kitchen and bathroom, it's pretty safe.

The only issue with isopropyl and ethanol is contact time. If it’s a very warm surface, the alcohol can evaporate quickly - which is one reason they add gelling agents to hand sanitizers.

But yes. For the kitchen and bathroom, alcohol works great as does dilute bleach (though the smell annoys me).

Same, I find IPA much more useful for rapidly wiping down phones and keys and hands etc.

I haven't seen isopropyl alcohol in stock in my local drug and grocery store since before March.

You are odd. I just use soapy water.

Soap is the way to go--apparently it just rips viruses apart limb-from-limb. Weird image to have when washing one's hands, but kind of also reinforces the utility of doing it.

Even ripping the virus apart is probably overkill. There's been pressure to remove things like triclosan (yes, it's not anti-viral) from hand soap because soap already does a good job washing off pathogens, so actually killing them doesn't help much.

Pure isopropyl alcohol is not a good disinfectant, and is highly flammable. You need some water, to act as a catalyst.

Also, it doesn't inactivate spores, so you need hydrogen peroxide or something chlorine based as well.[1]

https://blog.gotopac.com/2017/05/15/why-is-70-isopropyl-alco...

Yes that's correct, you need to dilute it to something like 80% to be most effective.

> It’s an ode to the commode, a throne room lined with 104 toilets from around the world, arranged inches apart in three aisles beneath national flags. Tanks and filters in an adjacent room replicate the water conditions in different countries, and above each bowl, mechanized plungers test the toilets at different flush rates.

I think they’ve missed an opportunity to find the best toilet. But I suppose that wouldn’t be good for their product’s sales.

Is this hyper cleanliness and germ aversion going to have any unexpected side effects on our immune systems?

I assume people who use spray cleaner more will be at higher risk of lung disease, as is known from e.g. people who work as maids.

I'm a little freaked out that my baby is turning 1 year old and has never caught a cold or had any kind of sniffles, because we've been so isolated. Surely I'm supposed to be exposing her to germs to build up her immune system or something?

Are they not putting all sorts of stuff in their mouths around the house yet? It’s not germ from other people, but my little one does stuff that disgusts me, but I’m too tired to always stop it.

Oh, yeah, she eats dirt, kisses the dog, and licks the pavement at the playground for some reason, so she's definitely getting exposure to a wide variety of nature's finest "germs", just not the sorts of human-infectious sniffling diseases that circulate in day cares and schools.

I suppose you could find what you are looking for by checking out the health data of homeschooled children compared to non-homeschooled children.

Her immune system is getting plenty of work. She’s just not getting the viruses that are really good at evading the immune system. What doesn’t kill you does not necessarily make you stronger. She’ll get them when she’s a little older and her immune system is a little stronger and she’ll be fine.

You can read up on the hygiene hypothesis. There are still a lot of unknowns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis?wprov=sfla1

I also include effects of long-term use of face masks as an unknown.

Not sure I’d be too worried. It’s not uncommon for kids who stay out of daycare for the first 2 years to catch up pretty quickly once they start getting exposed to other kids. My sister in law’s kid had made 1 or 2 minor colds by age 2, then went to daycare and was sick for about 3 months straight.

Depending on your situation, it might be even lower than that if nobody in the household is interacting with members of the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com