New York made 11M bottles of hand sanitizer that it can't get rid of
politico.com
politico.com
A gargantuan waste of time and money, it lies as a clear indicator of the dangers of the way public policy is formed and how health advice can very often be as viable as phrenology.
From the same school of science as spraying your streets with disinfectant or wearing masks outdoors.
My memory is that, at the very beginning, it wasn't known how COVID spread and that it was recommended out of an abundance of caution. Is my memory incorrect?
Separately, in what way was it something intentionally designed to be misleading or distracting?
> A gargantuan waste of time and money, it lies as a clear indicator of the dangers of the way public policy is formed
Was there ever public policy around hand sanitizer?
> health advice can very often be as viable as phrenology.
Which has more evidence of efficacy: phrenology or disinfectants?
People certainly used allusions to uncertainty; despite the fact it was always known that it was a coronavirus that worked exactly like all the others we've known about for half a century or more. Those appeals to uncertainty seem to have been a useful marketing tool in the sale of ineffective solutions. Like killing peoples pets or spraying the streets or wearing masks outdoors. Appealing to uncertainty is not evidence based policy.
> Was there ever public policy around hand sanitizer?
Yes. And health advice. Indeed in one African country i was forced to use hand sanitiser at gunpoint by a G4S guard. Such a grave error in telling lies about what is effective gives despots real opportunity. Many western countries spent tens of millions concocting marketing materials telling people how to correctly wash their hands and how often. Huge amounts of government were spent [wasted] on procuring it, as is the subject of this post.
> Which has more evidence of efficacy: phrenology or disinfectants?
Disinfecting streets for a droplet transmitted coronavirus is less effective than phrenology in the different magesteria they inhabit. At least the placebo effect of phrenology or its positive reinforcement probably helped some people psychologically when it was in vogue.
There's no time where hand sanitising isn't helpful, unless you're deep into germ theory, or think the cleanser is breeding stronger germs
I particularly enjoy this argument. Something so small it can't possibly be quantified is, yes, non zero. But in all practicality should be treated as zero. If the only thing that mattered then was R rate there was then (and now) no evidence hand washing advice and expenditure was cost effective.
> There's no time where hand sanitising isn't helpful,
We all wash hands and that's good. Especially if you work in a hospital or a kitchen where even more precautions should be taken.
However the advice had people quarantining their shopping after it was delivered and washing their hands every time they walked through a doorway (depending on which Wheel of Fortune whichever particular nation state decided to spin as part of their public health advice). I know people someone barely left the house who washed their hands obsessively to the point of drying out their skin so it bled as a result of public health advice. If that advice had not been given the outcomes would be the same.
Who was giving public health advice to wash your hands that much if you are barely leaving the house? Sounds more like user error (i.e. washing their hands at home despite there not being a reason to because health authorities assumed people would not do that at home)
Consideration of manner of an advice and how it is interpreted by different people is a common component of public health and medical advice or even drug prescription.
A multibillion dollar/pound advertising designed to terrify people in to obedience is obviously going to have some people adopt advice more enthusiastically than others. Perhaps exercise more caution when applying psycological manipulation in the future