Facemasks and Climate Change

According to many, facemasks have become political. There is a little indication that the difference of opinion between wearing and not wearing a face covering divides along party lines, but the real similarity to politics is that most people have made up their minds and will try to badger the other side into compliance. Some suggest a federal mandate.

Today doctors state that wearing a facemask is the right thing to do, but going back only a few months expert opinion was the opposite.

Here is an explanation I read last week on the fivethirtyeight site. “The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be.” 

Initially the experts thought “wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were – and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19.” The change in stance came “not because the evidence has significantly improved,” but because a sentiment spread that to wear one expressed caring about other people. The switch on mask wearing was based not on science but on a shift of the assumption about the perceived psychological effect – overconfidence vs. awareness. “Behavioral norms also matter, regardless of how much evidence backs them up.”

But once the behavioral norms machine starts moving, everything else including common courtesy and tolerance toward differing opinions go by the way side.” Most service workers where I shop wear a mask. Some don’t, but they practice social distancing; in my state/county it’s still a personal choice. A niece working in retail reports that wearing her mask all day at work gets extremely uncomfortable, but if she takes it off, customers will pull down their own masks to yell in her face how inconsiderate she is.

From the above article: “a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed” by email and on social media for merely expressing doubt about “how effective DIY cloth masks are.” 

This passionate and aggressive defense of opinion and unwillingness to consider alternative ideas came to mind as I read the next article in Wired.

A potential solution to slowing and possibly solving climate change could be on the horizon. A couple of companies are teaming with the Department of Energy to develop an idea that has been around for a while, but was formerly too cost prohibitive, tristructural isotropic (Triso) fuel. It is made by sealing small particles of a mixture of low enriched uranium and oxygen inside a protective shell. The fuel can be used to power small nuclear reactors. “Not only will these reactors be smaller and more efficient than current nuclear power plants, but their designers claim they’ll be virtually meltdown-proof,” as the particle can withstand temperatures far above the limit beyond which the reactor will automatically shut down.

Nuclear is by far the best solution to carbon-free power generation. It is more efficient and has a much smaller ecological footprint than wind and solar. And, Forbes reminds us, “Study after study in top scientific journals find that nuclear power plants are far and away the safest way to make reliable electricity.” And with the danger of meltdown eliminated, “rather than needing to have miles of open space around a reactor, future plants running on triso fuel could be situated close to their users.” NASA is considering it for nuclear powered spacecraft. 

This could be a dream come true with houses, factories and refueling stations for electric cars powered by meltdown-proof, non-polluting reactors. But in the blink of an eye, opponents will dub it the nightmare of the future with dire warnings of radiation poisoning and other terrifying predictions, accusing proponents of putting profit above caring for others. Can we count on the American public to consider the science before flying into a panic?

Will “behavior norms” quickly develop and, like the Germans who thought it was smart to phase out their nuclear power program in favor of dependency on coal and Russian oil and gas, will Americans likely reject it, harassing defenders and voting out politicians. Based on other behavioral evidence, that’s my fear. 

Is Chiropractic Effective Against COVID-19?

Everyone wants to take advantage of the pandemic; some offer products and services that lean toward quackery and others less so, but they are trying to lure in customers by playing on fear. Sometimes the connection is dubious. For example, CNN reports that the World Health Organization (WHO) “called on tobacco and nicotine industries across the world to stop taking advantage of the global pandemic and marketing directly to children and teens.” (How anyone can use the pandemic to put a positive spin on teen smoking is very puzzling, but WHO is worried.)

As another example, many chiropractors are posting information on their websites similar in wording to this one: “Regular chiropractic adjustments have been proven to boost your immune system. This is accomplished by improving the state of the nervous system which in turn improves the immune system.”

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) found these claims troubling. Concerned with the credibility of their practice, they tried to clarify in March with a 15-page bulletin stating in part: “There are no vaccines, no drugs, no natural remedies, no alternative therapies that have been tested and the outcomes peer reviewed to meet any credible evidence-based standard in science. This includes chiropractic.” They had “previously provided clear reminders to its members of the importance of not advertising” such abilities.

Where would hundreds of chiropractors get this idea? They believe that straightening a patient’s spine positively affects the nervous system by reducing stress. Stress reduction is loosely linked to immunity. As explain in the Annals of Vertebral Subluxation, which tracks chiropractic research, “It is well established that the nervous system controls and coordinates all functions and systems of the human body including immunity and the immune system.” This theoretical connection feeds an assumption that it is ethical to advertise chiropractic as a treatment and prevention during the pandemic. But it’s not.

This train of thought – less stress to nervous system to immunity – has never been proven to exist. This site quotes another ICA report warning, “there exists no credible, scientific evidence that would permit claims of effectiveness for conferring or enhancing immunity through spinal adjustment/manipulation to be made in communications by chiropractors.” Furthermore, last month “more than 150 chiropractic researchers from eleven countries criticized [any suggestion] that chiropractic care (primarily spinal manipulation), can have a meaningful impact on immune function.”

At the end of the 15-page ICA report, they make the lack of evidence clear by asking for more funding to support “necessary clinical research required to validate the role of doctors of chiropractic in promoting health and vitality by stimulating a healthy immune response.”

As these renegade chiropractors advertise viral immunity, along with several other questionable benefits, they undermine the credibility of the profession, providing more ammunition to the naysayers. Numerous skeptical publications, including this one, describe chiropractic as teetering precariously on the edge between science and pseudoscience.

Such advertising trying to get away with unsubstantiated claims, reinforces the need for critical thinking. Many chiropractors, naturopaths and others claim all sorts of peripheral health benefits. Patients walk in expecting miracles and walk out with placebo-effect satisfaction telling their friends. But wild claims and customer endorsements don’t constitute evidence. Eventually, the professional associate must move to protect the reputation of the profession before the FTA steps in to protect consumers. But none of this would be necessary, if critical thinking prevailed.

Flashback – Household Germs

[This piece from November 2014 has popped up as a favorite in the past. Perhaps it’s a good  reminder not to get out of the hand-washing habit.]

ABC asks the “shocking” question: What’s the most germ-infested place in your house? The answer, it turns out, is “the towels in your kitchen and bathroom.”

They go on to cite a Kimberly Clark-funded study whose author says, “towels are more likely to be bacteria-ridden than other household items because they are used to wipe hands and surfaces that may have been contaminated by raw meat products.” They are usually damp, a state that further encourages bacterial growth.  

If that's not disgusting enough, it is common knowledge that most home kitchens would not pass the kind of standard health inspection that cafeterias and restaurants are routinely subject to. We certainly don’t wear our hairnets when preparing dinner. How many people keep a thermometer in their refrigerator, clean all surfaces, assign different cutting boards to meat and vegetables or are diligent about chilling foods promptly at the end of each meal? These are standard food safety requirements. But the idea of handling raw meat and then wiping your hands on a kitchen towel before continuing with meal preparation is the kind of practice that would get your favorite eating establishment shut down.

This is not what really caught my attention in the article, though. What I noticed was the use of flu season and the Ebola scare in their introduction to set up the story. Flu and Ebola are viral diseases; they have nothing to do with the bacteria discussion that was the focus of the rest of the story. Like the writer, most people don’t seem to pay much attention to the difference between bacteria and viruses. Germs are germs. If I have a head cold, I call the doctor and ask for antibiotics – the fact that antibiotics act against bacteria and not viruses is not my concern. So we end up with germs that build a resistance to antibiotics, people don’t make the connection and then rely on “science” to fix the problem.

This is all unnecessary when we have easy access to a complete explanation of the differences between bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa written for kids! It points out that some bacteria are good, live in your body and help you digest food. It doesn’t mention that some fungi are good – like morel mushrooms. It closes with advice about hand washing with soap and water – nothing fancy needed, using tissues for coughs, sneezes and sniffles, and getting proper immunizations. Yes, it tells kids that immunizations are important and the smart choice. It closes with “eating well, exercising regularly, and getting good sleep” can keep you healthy.

This is great information and advice that many adults should heed. When a reporter for ABC news can so casually mix things up, then report on adults wiping, not washing their hands during food preparation, perhaps we need to take a step back and learn from the science that we expect our kids to understand.

[These issues call for critical thinking, but up in the first paragraph of the original piece, notice the use of the word “shocking.” Other news media favorites include "stunning," “staggering” and “catastrophic.” They can’t just address a question or pass along a fact. It has to be emotionally charged, controversial or both. In the process of presenting news that should call for critical thinking, they intentionally distract with emotional wording.]

Memorial Day

On the last Monday in May we celebrate Memorial Day. It’s traditionally considered the beginning of summer, a long weekend marked by cookouts, parades and political speeches – although probably less so this year.

Like most holidays, the meaning behind the celebration has been watered down considerably. The Old Farmers Almanac puts it well: “We spend time remembering those who lost their lives and could not come home, reflecting on their service and why we have the luxury and freedom that we enjoy today.” Most if not all those political speeches will also call on spectators to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

Yes, there will be much mention of freedom, but I have written many times in the past about the inexorable link between freedom and responsibility, most recently in a Flashback entry about two months ago.

Freedom is something that can be so easily frittered away. When children act irresponsibly, good parents impose restrictions, time outs or groundings. Others, though, may dismiss it as a phase they are going through. As their behavior leads to bigger problems, parents find themselves in a position of constantly having to bail their children out of trouble, because they have never learned responsibility. 

When they become adults, the government or advocates take over, often in the form of new regulations and restrictions. The problem is that, in order to keep the irresponsible from hurting themselves or others, those new regulations apply to everyone. To keep some citizens from making bad decisions, our elected leaders take away our ability to decide for ourselves. 

Because of a few irresponsible people, police have the legal right to set up sobriety checkpoints on highways waylaying everyone, without permission or a warrant.

Because of a few irresponsible people, encouraged by members of the legal profession who profit from it, try to shift the blame for their poor choices, every purchase requires warnings that add to the cost. We sign hold-harmless agreements and must carry extra insurance to guard against such reprisals.

How many states and counties have arbitrary laws about sales of liquor, fireworks, sugary soft drinks, and trans fats? If one busybody neighbor gets concerned, you can be arrested for letting your children walk a couple of blocks to the park alone.

This has become only more pronounced during the pandemic. Many governors impose arbitrary restrictions, in some cases enforced by threats of police involvement or other penalties. Even those who choose to make prudent decisions on their own are caught up in the hysteria. Some citizens feel obligated to shout at, threaten or report neighbors.

In one case, a salon owner in Texas “was ordered to spend a week in jail after she continued to operate her business despite restrictions put in place.” She was not free to operate her business, despite having brave employees and customers willing to participate.

Michigan residents were forbidden from buying seeds and garden supplies. It’s springtime! At least one mayor threatened to shut off utilities to maverick businesses. Meanwhile those who have been terrorized by the news media’s black-and-white portrayal of the situation, support the virtual house arrest, cower behind closed doors, fearful of dying themselves and accusing those who want to go back to work of being selfish and callous about the lives of others.

How long will some of the coronavirus restrictions stay in place? Will governors and mayors assume a new sense of marshal law-like powers to be called upon in any future situations that can be defined as emergencies? Will the how-many-deaths-is-it-worth crowd dominate, as we  permanently lose more freedom while politicians continue to vow to “fight for your rights” by passing more regulations?

The last line of the first verse of our National Anthem asked the question, “… does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” Francis Scott Key was asking whether the flag was still there. It is, but a better question would be: how much longer  can it honestly be considered "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? The founders chose liberty over safety, and that is presumably what all those people fought and died for. Today we seem to passively accept the opposite.

Is The News Making Us Sick?

It began one morning with two seemingly unrelated items: a story about mountain climbing on BBC Future and a panel from the comics section of the newspaper.

The BBC article, “The placebo effect is well known for its medical benefits, but there is evidence it could give athletes an edge, too,” began with an experiment where mountain climbers were given oxygen to boost physical performance at high altitudes. In a laboratory simulation, they were first given tanks of oxygen to improve performance. When they were later given empty tanks, their brains expected similar improvement and caused the body to adjust appropriately.

It went on to explain how placebos like this can improve athletic performance in other areas, for example, sugar pills believed to be performance enhancing drugs could have the same effect. 

The effectiveness of placebos applies to many areas. A summary of studies shows that “antidepressants are effective for depression about 31-70% of the time, while placebos are effective 12-50% of the time…. So, while antidepressants appear more effective than placebo, only a fraction of the benefit we see in patients is likely from a direct neurobiological impact of the medication itself.” Effectiveness depends on the amount of faith patients have in the product. Placebos taken as part of a test of more powerful drugs tend to have more powerful effects; and patients often report some of the same side effect as the drug itself.

This led me to another BBC article explaining the opposite effect, sometimes called nocebo. In this example the treatment was merely the words the doctor used. The doctor, talking about serious osteoarthritis, says that he has “bad news,” that the knees are “worn out” and the medicine may “help a bit,” but may damage the stomach lining. The doctor has set the patient up to expect the worst. This kind of presentation can unintentionally cause the brain to deliver the opposite of a placebo effect: less positive, possibly negative, outcomes.

A conclusion is “when prescribing treatments, the doctor should emphasise the positive effects of the medicine, while framing the negative side-effects so they seem less frightening, and being careful not to over-emphasise their risks.” They should be honest, but with an optimistic tone.

This led to yet another BBC article, this one from 2015, about how negative thoughts and ideas can not only make you sick, but actually kill you. This effect applies to any authority figure or respected expert, not just doctors. “In the same way that voodoo shamans could harm their victims through the power of suggestion, priming someone to think they are ill can often produce the actual symptoms of a disease.” Hence, people can die of fright or become sicker based on the message and their faith in the authority of the messenger.

Each of these articles is interesting, but coincidentally they came to my attention on the day I saw “The Flying McCoys” at the bottom of the page of an on-line newspaper. The idea is almost too true and too common to be funny and typical of many news programs.

Based on the information above, what is this doing to the overall health of the American people, this constant barrage of fears and anxiety over the virus and whether opening the economy too soon will be a mistake, the emphasis on the ever increasing number of cases and deaths, the constant skepticism about the actions and predictions of the task force, the criticism of any encouraging remarks – especially if they turn out to be overly optimistic; and for years now, fanning the flames of  divisiveness within the country – all with the express intention of putting us on edge, amplifying the fear and anxiety to get everyone to continue to tune in. 

Remember, placebo, the strong mind-body connection cuts both ways. Between the news media, social media and politicians, it’s surprising we are not all physical and emotional wrecks.

The news can be both addictive and unhealthy. One defense is to watch less. Another is to use critical thinking and see it for what it is, big business trying to attract “eyeballs,” and act accordingly, increase our skepticism, lessen our faith in the source and discount their predictions of a fearful outcome at every turn. 

More Idiocy From the Media

Not wanting to break the spirit of Flashback Fridays, I refer to “Why Aren’t We Insulted?” from just a few weeks ago, but this is really a slightly different subject.

On March 1 I wrote, “When companies and politicians treat us like compete idiots or pander to us by latching on to the latest trends, I think we should be insulted. We are being manipulated, but continue to respond predictably.” Equally insulting is a new trend in reporting on the coronavirus. The media treats us like fools and idiots without any pushback from readers and viewers.

I’ve heard it many times on local TV news as well as national network news, and I see it in print: “The death toll from coronavirus continues to rise.” Here are just a few quick examples from CBS, US News and the Baton Rouge Advocate.

Think about this for a minute. The death toll from anything is always going to rise unless there are zero deaths. The latest death toll, the one they refer to and display on the screen, is calculated by adding new deaths to the ones already reported. If there is only one more death, the toll goes up. And unless someone miraculously rises from the dead it will never decrease! In the middle of a pandemic, few additional deaths would be cause for some optimism. But optimistic news takes a back seat, and breathlessly reporting of “continuing to rise” is more frightening and better serves their purpose of keeping everyone in a panic, tuning in and anticipating their next breaking-news bombshell.

As critical thinkers, we should be insulted by such misleading headlines, but apparently we are not. We get the news that they want to serve up in the format they want to use and with built in bias. Journalism is, for the most part, dead. We get the news we respond to (or at least tolerate). We get the news we deserve.

They keep advertising "We are all in this together," but imagine the shock and surprise if just one reporter at the daily press conference asked the simple question, "What can we do to help?"

100,000 Deaths from COVID-19!

Last Tuesday as rumors of new guidelines asking everyone to wear facemasks spread, I decided to watch the Task Force briefing. There was no such guidance at that time, but I was impressed by how the reporters never seem to listen to the speakers. Are they distracted by the opportunity to ask their prepared questions and ability to get airtime? I spent a good deal of the time telling the TV, “They just said that!”

In any case the first question was about one of the graphs projecting 100,000 to 240,000 deaths, even with full mitigation. This was a modeling result and was in no way guaranteed. No one asked about confidence in the model or how it could change. They just focused on the numbers, because they are scary numbers. The primary reason for the question appeared to be to get the president to say the number, so they could pin it on him. He handed it off to Dr. Birx to show the chart again and repeat the projection.

The next day those scary numbers were all over the news. CBS said, "The White House projects 100,000 to 240,000 Americans will die from coronavirus if ‘full mitigation’ measures are taken.” NBC called it a “dire warning” and only used the upper limit of the projection. ABC chimed in with, “Grim Trump, doctors say prepare for potential 100K to 240K deaths.” That story emphasized the president “abruptly” changing his mind when given new information – I wonder what ABC does when they get new information. 

I cite the mainstream media here, because so many editorials like to pick only on “cable news” when criticizing incomplete or slanted coverage.

Now let’s do what neither the media nor the task force made an effort to do, put it in perspective.

First, are all these incremental deaths? – Probably not. Some of the people who die from the virus would likely have died anyway, especially those in nursing homes. In addition, with so many people staying home, traffic deaths and other accidental deaths may be avoided, but all deaths will be recorded as virus-related and extraordinary.

Second, America is a land of big numbers. The government just passed a law to spend a huge amount, over $2 trillion! Each year Americans drive over 3 trillion miles, personal and commercial, and 2.8 million babies are born. It wasn’t too long ago we were stressing over news like this, “more than 130 people in the United States die of an opioid overdose every day.” And today: “School closures due to coronavirus have impacted at least 124,000 U.S. public and private schools and affected at least 55.1 million students.” The CDC considers over 107 million American adults obese. In America, charities, activists and politicians wanting to raise money, awareness or votes easily find such big numbers to elicit support. 

The CDC estimates 24,000 to 62,000 deaths from the flu this last season, and that’s with a vaccine available. In 2018, the number was 55,672 from flu and pneumonia. If we had 100,000 deaths from coronavirus in 2018 (the last year with complete numbers), it would have ranked seventh among leading causes of death just ahead of Diabetes. 

In fact the total number of deaths in the US from all causes was 2,813,503. On average over 234,000 people die every month from other causes. It’s all counted in big numbers.

Relative to some of these numbers, 100,000 across the entire population is not that large; but taken by itself it can be scary. The task force uses it without perspective to motivate people, to shock them into doing the right thing. The media piles on by using it without perspective to attract viewers and to sell newspapers.

We should be able to cooperate in the containment effort without fear and be able to stay calm knowing the media agenda is to upset us enough to ensure we buy more of what they are selling. But that's not what's happening.

Don’t Be a Sucker

Last week I received an email where the subject line included the words “immune system.” There was something in the message about clicking on a link to unsubscribe. It was obviously either a promotion for a fake product or a phishing attempt. In any case, I sent it to the spam folder without opening it. 

Even if there were no link attached, it would have suffered the same fate. Anytime you see words like “boosting your immune system” or “promotes healing,” put your hand over your wallet and run away! It’s surprising how many people still don’t get it.

Marketing of these products has ramped up as the threat of the coronavirus pandemic hit the US. In fact according to this website, the airwaves and Internet are already overrun with bogus products and fake cures. “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have sent warning letters to seven companies allegedly selling unapproved products that may violate federal law by making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims about their ability to treat coronavirus (COVID-19).” 

These companies and others are pushing products, running the gamut from teas to essential oils to colloidal silver and other supplements, as being able to treat or prevent the disease. By law all such substances must state in their advertisements that they have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Most do, but some, like the ones in the article, get into trouble when they fail to comply. 

In any case, there are not yet any treatments for coronavirus nor is there a vaccine to prevent it. Even without the disclaimer, it should be clear that these are scams. Here, for example, is what Mayo Clinic says about colloidal silver. “Colloidal silver isn't considered safe or effective for any of the health claims manufacturers make.” It doesn’t work for coronavirus or any other condition and may be harmful.

It takes almost no effort for critical thinkers to find flaws with the products and supposed health services listed. The truth should be common knowledge by now. (See any of my many previous entries debunking the benefits of dietary supplements, starting here.) References in the above article to a “naturopathic doctor” or to renegade chiropractors falsely claiming some power against the virus should raise red flags. 

But instead panic buying of supplements, or what this site refers to as “immune products,” in the wake of the coronavirus scare is leading to supply shortages and higher prices.

The expression “There’s a sucker born every minute” is often attributed to P.T. Barnum, but there is no evidence that he ever said it. It may have been said by any number of other people and is commonly heard and understood in the 21^st century.

I have no respect for these companies pushing fake remedies. They all should be sent to the spam mailbox. The ones that fail to post the disclaimer deserve their problems with the government. The ones that post the disclaimer but still imply some medicinal power for their products are no better than modern day snake-oil salesmen looking for the next sucker. Those who still believe in what NPR calls the Vitamin C myth or rely on other supplements, essential oils, reiki or other alternative medicine for their health needs may as well be handing their money to a witchdoctor for all the good it will do them.

Wise up. Don’t be a sucker.

Added Note: It is helpful to remember we are all in this together, except apparently for the news media, doing all they can to highlight the negative aspects of the disease and the efforts to combat it to promote fear and anxiety.

Coronavirus Fears

The fears, more so than the virus, are leading people to do strange things. The toilet paper and bottled water hoarding is just one example. I stopped by the grocery store today and it was packed at 1:30 in the afternoon. Schools announced they would shut down for 2 weeks to disinfect, and apparently what you do when the schools are closed to keep the kids from infecting each other is take them to a crowded grocery store instead.

And what the schools are disinfecting is a mystery, since there have been no reported cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in this or any of the surrounding counties. But I guess the schools will be as germ-free as they have ever been.

I don’t think the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is doing anyone any favors. He is undoubtedly very knowledgeable on the subject, but his bedside manner leaves something to be desired. With the country in a panic he told Congress, “things will get worse than they are right now. ”

That is the direct truth, perhaps a little too direct. It is understandable from a purely clinical point of view that diseases spread, especially in a population without immunity, but words like that don’t do anything to get people to calm down. They have the opposite effect (to the great delight of the news media). 

So here is another way to think about it. America is very likely better at dealing with such a problem than China. The first case in China was traced to November 17 of last year.

By February 29, we were seeing headlines like this from NPR: “As New Coronavirus Cases Slow In China, Factories Start Reopening.” They were still having some economic problems, but the future seemed brighter.

By March 12 Reuters was reporting: “The Chinese city of Wuhan, ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak, reported just five new cases on Friday, the second day in a row the tally has been less than 10, while no locally transmitted infections were reported in the rest of the country.” Less than four months after the initial outbreak they seemed to be getting a handle on the problem.

That should be encouraging for the rest of us. Though it will likely get worse as Dr. Fauci stated, the first case of coronavirus was already detected in the US just about two months ago. “On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever.”

Now extrapolation can be a little dangerous, and no one can guarantee that we will be out of the woods less than two months from now. But judging from progression of the disease in China and subsequently in Italy, it seems like a decent assumption. Whether it is or not remains to be seen, but taking that point of view is certainly more comforting (and realistic) than listening to the evening news and then hauling the kids off to the store to buy more toilet paper. 

Coronavirus Benefits (?)

I thought perhaps one of the few possible benefits of this coronavirus (COVID-19) scare is that people would begin washing their hands more often. Apparently I was wrong. Instead people are hoarding hand sanitizers, leading to price gouging on the Internet and bare shelves at brick-and-mortar locations. Time reports: “Sales of hand sanitizers in the U.S. were up 73% in the four weeks ending Feb. 22 compared to the same period a year ago.”

Further along in this and several other articles we are reminded that washing with soap and water is superior. “If you’re not near a sink, hand sanitizer will do. But keep in mind that it doesn’t kill all germs, the CDC says.”

I reminded readers about this last fall in a piece about how the media insists on presenting old news as the latest discovery. Here is an excerpt from that entry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example of well-known information being presented as a new revelation: a study hitting the Internet and the airways recently revealed that “Washing your hands under running water may be a better way to stop the spread of infections than using a hand sanitizer.” The hand sanitizer can be nearly as effective as washing hands for removing flu viruses, provided both are done properly. It just takes longer.

In laboratory experiments “it took about 30 seconds for the sanitizer to eliminate all the flu virus in the saline samples, but more than 4 minutes for the sanitizer to get rid of flu in the mucus samples.” From the lab tests they moved to a more real-life situation by putting mucus directly on people’s fingertips. When it was given time to dry (for 40 minutes), the hand sanitizer killed the flu virus within 30 seconds. But in a more realistic situation where the mucus was still moist, it took about 4 minutes of rubbing for the flu virus to be completely eliminated.

Proper hand washing removed traces of the virus in both cases in about 30 seconds, whether the participants used soap or not. The benefit is not from the soap, but from the rubbing under running water. 

No one is likely to rub the hand sanitizer for 4 minutes or alternatively to let their hands dry after sneezing for 40 minutes, but neither do many people spend half a minute scrubbing under running water. When a sink is not available the alcohol is a good option. 

That’s what we know today, but we had substantially the same information 10 years ago. From Live Science in October 2009: “Hand washing with ordinary soap and water is the most effective way to remove germs. But when you're on the go, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are tremendously effective in preventing the spread of the seasonal flu.” They gave 20 seconds for washing and 15 for the sanitizer, so the latest study just worked a little on the details. It wasn’t really news.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relative to the recent hoarding, CBS News made a good point a few years ago when they asked: “Does hand sanitizer give people a false sense of security?”

Furthermore, earlier this year Fox Business reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to Purell about claims on their website pages and social media platforms, claims that were either totally erroneous or not supported by evidence.

Others fear that germs accumulating on bar soap negates the benefits or washing and believe that antibacterial soap is the better choice. Both these assumptions are faulty as I explained in “Thinking About Soap” in September 2016.

The question remains: Will Americans use the latest coronavirus outbreak as an opportunity to learn and grow, taking rational precautions and not flying into a panic, or will they continue to react to each intentionally scary news story as if the world is ending? Time will tell.