$194 for hand sanitizer? You must be joking(reuters.com)
reuters.com
$194 for hand sanitizer? You must be joking
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-cma/194-for-hand-sanitizer-you-must-be-joking-idUSKBN20S1TU
101 comments
You can easily make it yourself: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Hand-Sanitizer
Yep it is silly for people to be hoarding hand sanitizer. A simple 70% alcohol solution would work just as well. That’s what we spray our gloves and biosafety hood with in the lab.
It doesn't have to be people "hoarding". It just has to be people buying faster than the just-in-time system has enough supply buffer to buffer for. If a very large demand spike drains the system of supply, then you're going to get at least one of high prices or shortages, and no rule against both.
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.
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.
It doesn’t seem silly at all to have a stock of hand sanitizer. Quite the opposite - now that we know that hand sanitizer can easily run out, it seems rational to keep an emergency supply, if you have enough storage space and extra income to keep an emergency supply of things. I am going to add some to my emergency preparedness stash, once the current situation dies down and I can actually get some cheaply on amazon.
Sorry I should have phrased that better. I meant silly to be freaking out and buying $160 hand sanitizer when it is just alcohol and water and a thickening agent and a few other things.
Straight 70% alcohol without an emollient probably becomes pretty unpleasant rather quickly.
Yes, but what kind of alcohol? Grain alcohol is impractical because of the expense, isopropyl alcohol is likely to sell out quickly as well.
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?
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?
One common denaturant is methanol which is probably not best to absorb on your skin.
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.
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 disinfecting surfaces at home, you certainly could use denatured alcohol, but diluted bleach is just as good and is dirt cheap.
For cleaning hands, soap and water is more effective than alcohol based sanitizers and also very inexpensive.
For cleaning hands, soap and water is more effective than alcohol based sanitizers and also very inexpensive.
[deleted]
Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. I personally hadn't thought to look up how to make DIY hand sanitizer and found it interesting.
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.
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.
> At the Target near me, every single bottle of it is gone
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.
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.
I read this article far more more seriously than any another r/disneyvacation post.
One thing I’d like to see architecturally change is the creation of hand washing stations at the entrances to large buildings. I’d love to simply wash my hands before and after entering Costco, but the bathrooms are out of the way and you need to wade through reverse cart traffic to get there when entering.
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!
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!
I'm curious how much the habits created during this situation will have lasting impacts that might be beneficial in the long run.
Great idea!
During a shortage:
Commodity is available. Commodity is affordable.
Pick 1.
Commodity is available. Commodity is affordable.
Pick 1.
"Available" for a price people can't pay is still a reduction in availability.
There's no kinder way to say this:
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.
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.
People have some flexibility, though, in the price they are willing to pay. So it is not as bad as an empty shelf.
To mitigate the price rise during a shortage, I have been thinking about an insurance-type structure. If a supply runs short, there’s a very real need for people to actually produce the product, but that can result in having to call more people in to work, longer hours, overtime, etc. And there’s also the extra cost of delivery.
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.
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.
This is what futures contracts are for. They are settled with a physical delivery or in cash, depending on the contract.
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.
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.
3) government intervenes
And does what? make more supply appear from thin air?
Resource allocation that favors public wellbeing over market efficiency.
Market efficiency is precisely about public wellbeing. Concretely, what are you suggesting? In face of limited supply, there's only 2 choices: keep the prices low or raise the prices. The former accelerates supply depletion; the latter helps maintain supply availability. You're asking for the government to come in and pull a third choice out of their sleeve, but I don't see such a choice. If you're the government, concretely, what would you do?
EDIT: Now, if you suspect price gouging, that's different. wtfrmyinitials was referring to a genuine shortage, though.
EDIT: Now, if you suspect price gouging, that's different. wtfrmyinitials was referring to a genuine shortage, though.
That’s true if the proposed intervention is simply price caps, as opposed to rationing.
And does what? Mandates that hand sanitizer not exceed some price/oz? There'll still be shortages, because some whales will buy it all. Mandate caps on the amount that a person can buy? I suppose hospitals are fucked then, and that's assuming that people don't circumvent the restrictions anyways.
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.
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.
A bottle of isopropanol, prior to this event, cost approximately 79 cents.
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.
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.
You assume the price is at equilibrium.
If there is gouging, that's definitely not the case.
If there is gouging, that's definitely not the case.
If the price is being "gouged" by the manufacturer, doesn't that mean they will ramp up production much faster? The extra money will also help them hedge against the risk of overproduction if the thing fizzles out fast.
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.
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.
I think it is called rationing.
That's my preference. Markets are generally great, but in extreme conditions intervention is necessary. This happens in non-governmental markets, too. For example, I know stock exchanges and commodities markets have all sorts of mechanisms to prevent market failure.
That's just rationing, the same thing as 'commodity is affordable'.
Or maybe you're expecting it to not be a real shortage?
Or maybe you're expecting it to not be a real shortage?
4) People take preventative measures.
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?
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?
Plenty of people can't afford to buy toilet paper in bulk. What do you recommend for them?
If everyone who could afford to handle their own lives and responsibilities did, the role of government could actually be to prop up the bottom x% and keep things stable. If 90% of people make no preparations, there's no possible way to respond in a way that you can save everyone from a serious disaster.
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Now the commodity is neither available nor affordable!
I generally favor markets but one of the main reasons we have a federal government is to do everything required in this type of situation. Stay away as much as you can, but be there when we need you.
... but it can be more intelligently allocated.
Sometimes an ideal market is the worst possible thing.
Sometimes an ideal market is the worst possible thing.
[deleted]
I've noticed a curve model happening on Amazon.
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.
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.
I bought some early last week. I got supplies two weeks ago when friends and family were laughing at me saying I was being paranoid. Now they are asking me where to get some hand sanitizer or bleach since it's sold out everywhere.
Yup, gotta clean all those bacteria off your hands to avoid a virus, right? Just use hand soap. It's more effective. (yes I know alcohol still kills the virus, but buying hand sani isn't necessary when we already have a more effective tool at pretty much every sink)
I have to ask, why do you assume that people are using hand sanitizer instead of washing their hands? In the case of a pandemic, I would like to disinfect my hands mostly in places where there is no access to running water. Like, in my car after being in a public place, or at my desk.
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)"
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)"
Sorry, just being an asshole. Using sanitizer in those situations makes perfect sense.
I wash my hands, but I can't when I'm getting gas, driving around, sitting at my desk and someone brings mail, people touch my door handles, etc etc. The idea that sanitizer replaces soap is dumb, but the idea that washing hands makes sanitizer is dumb too.
Point taken, I was wrong.
Thanks to Shipt grocery delivery, we generally only keep 2-3 days worth of food in the house for a family of 5. With the threat of this outbreak, it hit me that my household has bought into the global Just In Time inventory system that the big stores utilize. I suggested to my wife that we "stock up" and she tells everyone that I'm making us "hoard up food like a doomsdayer" when in reality its maybe 2 weeks of essentials.
I’m in a similar boat. It was tough convincing my wife (who has an extreme aversion to waste) that we needed everything. I figure it’s best for everyone to prep early, since it has the least effect on the supply chain.
The worst case scenario is we end up donating some non-perishable food to a food bank in 9 months or a year.
The worst case scenario is we end up donating some non-perishable food to a food bank in 9 months or a year.
Poor Syrians, they can not even make their hand sanitizers nor buy off the shelf: isopropyl is an essential ingredient in sarin production. People were put in jail for shipping it overseas. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2019/01/22/isopropyl-alcohol...
They can still make it with ethanol. https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf
Protip: cheap vodka works well.
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.
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.
Vodka is 40% alcohol, which is not a high enough concentration to be effective.
Correction (you're right, of course, if you live in a country that thinks vodka must always be 40%): Everclear is effective. It also comes in minibar sized bottles.
95% isopropyl alcohol is even cheaper, and puritan-compatible. ;)
95% isopropyl alcohol is even cheaper, and puritan-compatible. ;)
Its not 40% everywhere, I saw vodka much higher than that, especially the further east you go in eastern europe.
Although I doubt even the strongest one will do the job.
You can find some very strong vodkas out there, 180 proof in the US corresponds to 90% alcohol.
I see this being repeated in a few places, but usually at least 70% alcohol is recommended to be effective.
I have no sources for this, but I've heard that actually 70% is the optimal concentration, and that above that the alcohol is less effective. Something to do with not having enough water content to dissolve stuff, or something.
A thread on that subject, "ELI5: How is that Alcohol 70% is better than Alcohol 90% as disinfectant?":
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/erfec8/e...
It evaporates too fast. It's a problem I always have with isopropyl alcohol, you've got to move fast.
Your local hardware store has plenty of chemicals that will neutralize most viruses an are less expensive and more socially acceptable to smell of during the workday than vodka. Pretty much anything that cuts grease should do the trick for this particular virus. Brake cleaner is my personal favorite.
Seconding brake cleaner it annihilates anything you spray it at. What a godly substance.
Isn't brake cleaner not exactly meant for skin contact?
I don't get it - is normal soap ineffective?
The benefit is you can place hand sanitizer in a lot more locations. Near doors, desks, entrances/exits, conference rooms, etc.
A thorough wash with soap and water is better, but harder to distribute around an office building, hotel, conference center, etc.
A thorough wash with soap and water is better, but harder to distribute around an office building, hotel, conference center, etc.
Didn't think about this - thx
Soap is generally superior and more versatile.
https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-san...
https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-san...
It's actually more effective. The virus is essentially protected by fat, which is easily broken down by soap. In fact it's what soap is best at. Anti-bacterial hand sanitizer isn't the best approach for.. well, a virus.
Most hand sanitizers are like 60-70% alcohol. That should kill viruses as well.
Yes, fair. But that doesn't make it more effective vs. simply washing your hands with warm water & soap.
I have read that normal soap (or any kinds of detergents) is more effective than hand sanitizer in killing corona virus. The reason is that corona virus is enveloped in a lipid coating and the soap 'pops' it like a ballon, destroying the virus. So just washing your hand is enough.
Hand sanitizer needs to be very strong, I recall seeing 70% alcohol, and it needs to be left "wet" for minutes rather than being applied in small enough amounts it dries right away. Alcohol can disrupt the virus's lipid membrane.
Soap is simpler and faster, if you can use it.
Soap is simpler and faster, if you can use it.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5116.pdf
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
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
That is an interesting study, thanks for the link. You missed a couple relevant bits though:
"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.
"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.
I believe it's fine, I think hand sanitizer is just better because it's "on-the-go" for a lot of people. You don't need water to use, like with soap.
It is but people don't know/believe that.
[deleted]
So what happens to the cellulose after the alcohol evaporates?
you wipe it on your jeans
Sticks to your hands. That's why I prefer washing my hands, because they feel clean afterwards.
It stays on your hands. If you want to use a lot, a bottle of isopropyl alcohol might be better.
[deleted]
Given we're pretty much all going to catch it anyway, whats the point? I'd be happy to get it over with soon.
I'm sure no-one's reading this far back, but for the record I would edit or delete the above if I still could. It was a pretty silly statement for a number of reasons. I never had much cause in the past to read or think much about epidemiology, and now I have .. well I'm thinking quite differently about it all.
water + detergent is more effective than sanitizers.
Is anyone ACTUALLY surprised? Seems like an obvious supply/demand situation, and of course (bad) people are going to take advantage of that.
> "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.
> "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.
Ok, so you set a price cap and it all sells out in 10 minutes. What then?
What do you mean, what then? Then it's gone. That's all. There's no moral component to this.
Maybe it would be better if the people who needed it more and were willing to pay more got it, instead of one average guy who wants to panic buy the whole shelf. In terms of giving the right stuff to the right people, the ranking is probably "price cap and instant sell-out" < "price-based rationing" < "need-based rationing."
>the people who needed it more and were willing to pay more got it
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.
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.
> 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.
Yes, but what's a good allocation metric for 'deserves' ? It's not an easily quantifiable metric.
There is no law that prevents stores from having limits. Most places seem to manage not running out of inventory with significant sales or coupons just fine.
"Most places manage not to run out of inventory when they give out their own coupons or choose to run sales and have decades of experience in knowing what to expect from them" does not translate to "will know how to avoid running out during a black swan event like a pandemic".
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
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
Hand sanitizer is not life or death even in a pandemic.
There is also rationing. Ever saw "Limit of X pieces per customer" signs or equivalent? With a price cap, that's essentially rationing.
If they're effective, you ration them like with any other emergency.
limit quantity per customer?
Go on Amazon, literally half of their listings for sanitizer are "currently unavailable".