paul wheaton wrote:Dear S and Jordan,
Thanks so much for the technical reserach backing up my heebie jeebies!
I present to you this question: in the same foolish situation, you probably would have brought your own good to simulate hand sanitizer - much, much smarter than what I did. But if you were there without that, would you have simply caved to using the hand sanitizer or would you also have refused to use their sanitizer and their "soap"?
S Bengi wrote:I would have done exactly what you did.
r ranson wrote:
It's like maks wearing, publically sanitizing our hands isn't so much for our benefit (although it does have more benefits than masks) but to make the people around us feel more comfortable.
Medical professionals are a tough breed
We've lost a lot of good doctors to this virus because they are more likely to get a high load of virus than a low load which has been shown to have worse odds. So I understand them following what they're being told and certainly here in Canada, there's been huge emphasis on "wash your hands". That said, I started avoiding hand sanitizer and "anti-microbial" soaps years ago because I totally agree with you Paul, that they're going to kill the good bugs and let the bad bugs get worse. Before this virus happened, I was actually starting to see comments from the occasional doctor to that effect - only use such things when necessary. A bunch of hand sanitizers have recently been recalled here for having unapproved ingredients. Your skin is your largest "organ" and it is totally capable of absorbing good stuff (think epsom salt bath) and bad stuff.
I suppose that if I told anybody here that I was going to the doctor (I elected to say nothing more than "errands in town") then somebody may have told me "make sure to bring your own hand sanitizer or else they will make you use theirs." I could have put mayonnaise in a bottle and rubbed it on my hands and they would think "good enough." Such supple skin!
Jay Angler wrote:
As for masks, there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that where *everyone who can* does wear a mask when around strangers and in shops/busses etc, transmission and severity of this virus has been reduced. However, as always, how and what is being worn is the issue. The masks I've made have been made with well washed cotton - I'm more concerned with artificial fibers and modern toxic chemicals in the fabric and the soap than with 30 year old cotton which I've mostly been using. However, I also think that wearing the same mask too long increases the risk to the wearer. Since I sew them myself, I have several and never wear one for too long.
Mark Reed wrote:
What the hell is sun pucky??
I've limited and close to avoided Sunscreen for decades because I didn't trust much of what's in it. I also think us Northerners *really* need some sun exposure for the Vit D, and I'm sure I read somewhere, but not necessarily a reliable source, that sunscreen was interfering with Vit D absorption. However, humans have screwed up that "thousands of years" bit two ways: 1. we damaged the ozone layer with chemicals so we lost a percentage of our protection and 2. most of those people lived shorter lives than we do (much of the skin cancer I've seen has been in people over 55 years of age.)
Jordan Holland wrote:I'm guessing sunscreen, or sun lotion. Dr. Bergman also recommends against sunscreen. He mentions humans have lived in the sun, especially in the tropics, often with little more than a loincloth covering them for thousands of years with no astronomical rates of skin cancer, so it is not likely the sun causing skin cancer, it is most likely something else.
Chris Kott wrote:
Again, though, COVID-19 is not the flu. It isn't related to influenza. Why would we look at influenza data to judge the appropriateness of hand sanitizer use for COVID-19?
If you two don't stop this rough-housing somebody is going to end up crying. Sit down and read this tiny ad:
Greenhouse of the Future ebook - now free for a whilehttps://permies.com/goodies/greenhouse