A Montgomery County Fire and Rescue spokesman said hand sanitizer and a lit cigarette can be a bad combination in an unventilated area like a car. A car exploded into flames Thursday evening in Maryland when a driver used hand sanitizer while smoking a cigarette, according to Montgomery County Fire and Rescue. The fire started about 5:30 p.m. at the Federal Plaza Shopping Center. The driver used hand sanitizer while smoking a cigarette, which a Montgomery County Fire and Rescue spokesman said is a bad combination in an unventilated area like a car. Montgomery County Fire and Rescue treated and transported one adult with minor burns and non-life threatening injuries. The car was a total loss. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/car-explodes-into-flames-as-driver-uses-hand-sanitizer-while-smoking-a-cigarette/2671728/ You probably having such a nice day compared to this fella. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
| The only explanation for this are the vapors from the hand sanitizer causing the fire. There's just so many things that you can't smoke around or fires and explosions may occur. |
 |
| This is why you either don't get too paranoid with desinfectant and leave it be or don't smoke inside a car But I'm more curious about what the insurance will do in such a case |
| why WHY would you ever use anything with ALCHOAL in it next to a FLAME? |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| Only in America, the surprise was that it wasn't in Florida. |
 |
| This serves to teach us that we really shouldn't be putting a bunch of chemicals of dubious origins on our hands every few minutes. |
| some peoples are probably going to use that reason to stop using sanitiser saying "see, it's dangerous" . Because of course, between stopping using that and stop smoking, the later is not going to happen 'aight ~ Edit: actually it's already happening on the comment right above, didn't take long. |
 |
hazarddex said: It doesn't sound like it was intentional, but rather just unlucky negligence why WHY would you ever use anything with ALCHOAL in it next to a FLAME? QPR said: And here I thought, Florida was one of the least restrictive Federal StatesOnly in America, the surprise was that it wasn't in Florida. MossRoss said: Exactly thisThis serves to teach us that we really shouldn't be putting a bunch of chemicals of dubious origins on our hands every few minutes. Zefyris said: One is an addiction and the other is an obsessive-compulsive disorder based on an indoctrinated paranoia some peoples are probably going to use that reason to stop using sanitiser saying "see, it's dangerous" . Because of course, between stopping using that and stop smoking, the later is not going to happen 'aight ~ Both are bad Sanetizers have their legitmate use in specific situations, especially in hospitals, but are a very bad idea on a widespread use |
Noboru said: hazarddex said: It doesn't sound like it was intentional, but rather just unlucky negligence why WHY would you ever use anything with ALCHOAL in it next to a FLAME? QPR said: And here I thought, Florida was one of the least restrictive Federal StatesOnly in America, the surprise was that it wasn't in Florida. MossRoss said: Exactly thisThis serves to teach us that we really shouldn't be putting a bunch of chemicals of dubious origins on our hands every few minutes. Zefyris said: One is an addiction and the other is an obsessive-compulsive disorder based on an indoctrinated paranoia some peoples are probably going to use that reason to stop using sanitiser saying "see, it's dangerous" . Because of course, between stopping using that and stop smoking, the later is not going to happen 'aight ~ Both are bad Sanetizers have their legitmate use in specific situations, especially in hospitals, but are a very bad idea on a widespread use One kills more peoples yearly than the Covid. The other has protected many lives and will continue to do so. Excess is bad in everything, but anyone that needs to smoke in his car because he/she can't wait to finish its trip to smoke is already way into excess smoking. |
|
| Natural selection at work. Real men don't use hand sanitizer and smoke with their windows open when they drive, so the neighborhood can enjoy the music they're blasting. Look at me, I didn't wash my hands since 1993, and do I look like Imma get covid or burn in my car? |
 |
Zefyris said: One kills more peoples yearly than the Covid. The other has protected many lives and will continue to do so. Excess is bad in everything, but anyone that needs to smoke in his car because he/she can't wait to finish its trip to smoke is already way into excess smoking. My car is legit the only place where I smoke cigarettes, HAH! Also when you see how hand sanitizers look like in public places... I'm not touching that shit lmao, I'd get skin cancer from all the crass on it. WTH is wrong with people, do they wipe with their hands? |
|
MossRoss said: This serves to teach us that we really shouldn't be putting a bunch of chemicals of dubious origins on our hands every few minutes. It is mostly ethanol usually, which is pretty much harmless on your skin but still highly flammable. Nevertheless, reading the label is a good idea probably. |
149597871 said: MossRoss said: This serves to teach us that we really shouldn't be putting a bunch of chemicals of dubious origins on our hands every few minutes. It is mostly ethanol usually, which is pretty much harmless on your skin but still highly flammable. Nevertheless, reading the label is a good idea probably. Yeah well... Doesn't glycerol make it kinda... explosive? My days spent paying attention to chemistry classes are long gone, but somehow I think Iwould avoid mixing some combustible with something called glycerol lol. Isn't glycerin/glycerol the shit we utilise to stabilize explosives and make them go boom instead of froutsh? |
|
Zefyris said: How does hand-sanetizer in the car save lives?One kills more peoples yearly than the Covid. The other has protected many lives and will continue to do so. |
| the point is to use it as you enter the car after having been outside for a while and touch various things, and do that before you touch other stuff in the car or remove your mask inside the car and the like ? That's not rocket science. |
|
| I dunno I just put my fingers in my mouth to clean them like every normal caveman. |
|
Zefyris said: Yes, I get the part and I can more than sympathize with using handsanetizers when you're forced to put on a piece of pathogen collector a lot of time over your face, but outside of it, it doesn't prove how it saves lifes. If anything, then the whole masking and disinfectant policy is kinda dubiousthe point is to use it as you enter the car after having been outside for a while and touch various things, and do that before you touch other stuff in the car or remove your mask inside the car and the like ? That's not rocket science. Maybe some risk groups can profit from it, but for the vast majority of people, it feels like adding extra-kill measures to over-kill measures only to minimize the disadvantages of having to wear masks |
Noboru said: Zefyris said: Yes, I get the part and I can more than sympathize with using handsanetizers when you're forced to put on a piece of pathogen collector a lot of time over your face, but outside of it, it doesn't prove how it saves lifes. If anything, then the whole masking and disinfectant policy is kinda dubiousthe point is to use it as you enter the car after having been outside for a while and touch various things, and do that before you touch other stuff in the car or remove your mask inside the car and the like ? That's not rocket science. Maybe some risk groups can profit from it, but for the vast majority of people, it feels like adding extra-kill measures to over-kill measures only to minimize the disadvantages of having to wear masks You do realize that sanitizer is what prevents a TON of lethal nosocomial diseases right ? Even outside of Covid hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. Now add to that any life that was saved by allowing fragile peoples to not catch Covid for example, and are we going to argue that using hand sanitizer is a bad thing? Really ? If risk group benefit from it, then for non risk group not propagating the disease to risk group is LITERALLY SAVING LIVES ? Hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. smoking kills a tremendous amount of lives per year. But somehow, as predicted, some peoples here have managed to question the usage of hand sanitiser rather than the smoking habit. Fantastic. And absolutely typical. |
|
| aw, i thought someone died or something. |
Ghemotoc said: 149597871 said: It is mostly ethanol usually, which is pretty much harmless on your skin but still highly flammable. Nevertheless, reading the label is a good idea probably. Yeah well... Doesn't glycerol make it kinda... explosive? My days spent paying attention to chemistry classes are long gone, but somehow I think Iwould avoid mixing some combustible with something called glycerol lol. Isn't glycerin/glycerol the shit we utilise to stabilize explosives and make them go boom instead of froutsh? No, I do not think that the glycerol in hand sanitizers makes them more explosive/flammable than they already are. You are probably talking about nitroglycerin, which is kind of similar (same as glycerin/glycerol but as the name suggests, it contains some nitro (NO2) groups). |
149597871May 18, 2021 7:12 AM
149597871 said: Ghemotoc said: Yeah well... Doesn't glycerol make it kinda... explosive? My days spent paying attention to chemistry classes are long gone, but somehow I think Iwould avoid mixing some combustible with something called glycerol lol. Isn't glycerin/glycerol the shit we utilise to stabilize explosives and make them go boom instead of froutsh? No, I do not think that the glycerol in hand sanitizers makes them more explosive. You are probably talking about nitroglycerin, which is kind of similar (same as glycerin/glycerol but as the name suggests it contains some nitro (NO2) groups). Yeah I think you need a nitrate actually to make glycerol explosive. It probably just thickens the ethanol and makes it stick to your skin and burn slower... Which makes all those hand sanitizers quality molotov cocktails :'^) |
DeathkoMay 18, 2021 7:16 AM
|
Ghemotoc said: 149597871 said: No, I do not think that the glycerol in hand sanitizers makes them more explosive. You are probably talking about nitroglycerin, which is kind of similar (same as glycerin/glycerol but as the name suggests it contains some nitro (NO2) groups). Yeah I think you need a nitrate actually to make glycerol explosive. It probably just thickens the ethanol and makes it stick to your skin and burn slower... You can find it in various cosmetics products as well, actually. Maybe it has some moisturizing/softening properties. Hell yeah! Fire is the best sanitizer! |
149597871May 18, 2021 7:20 AM
Zefyris said: Do you have statistics of hospital diseases being wide-spread outside of hospitals?Noboru said: Yes, I get the part and I can more than sympathize with using handsanetizers when you're forced to put on a piece of pathogen collector a lot of time over your face, but outside of it, it doesn't prove how it saves lifes. If anything, then the whole masking and disinfectant policy is kinda dubious Maybe some risk groups can profit from it, but for the vast majority of people, it feels like adding extra-kill measures to over-kill measures only to minimize the disadvantages of having to wear masks You do realize that sanitizer is what prevents a TON of lethal nosocomial diseases right ? Even outside of Covid hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. Now add to that any life that was saved by allowing fragile peoples to not catch Covid for example, and are we going to argue that using hand sanitizer is a bad thing? Really ? If risk group benefit from it, then for non risk group not propagating the disease to risk group is LITERALLY SAVING LIVES ? Hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. smoking kills a tremendous amount of lives per year. But somehow, as predicted, some peoples here have managed to question the usage of hand sanitiser rather than the smoking habit. Fantastic. And absolutely typical. I'm not denying that hand sanetizers have their use in specified settings such as hospitals or when you want to disinfect a wound Also, if they are that essential, how could people live that long without any hand sanetizers in their normal, daily life? I'm not talking about the special cases of using it in a hospital or when you have an open wound, but rather about plain normal situations such as getting into your car Trying to prevent people from catching a virus that is that easily transmitted is pretty much as impossible as erradicating the common cold. The question should be rather how to boost immune response and there is more to it than just putting all the trust on some vaccines Also, there is also the question of improving treatment I'm questioning both the addiction and the obsessive behavior, but I see that it's much easier to get rid of an indoctrinated habit than of an addiction |
| I doubt it was just hand sanatizer. A lot of people in east coast started hoarding gasoline after that hack because they worried price would go up. People were filling up water bottles and plastic bags with gasoline. Zefyris said: some peoples are probably going to use that reason to stop using sanitiser saying "see, it's dangerous" . Because of course, between stopping using that and stop smoking, the later is not going to happen 'aight ~ Edit: actually it's already happening on the comment right above, didn't take long. Meanwhile they will light another cig up while pumping their gas. Ghemotoc said: Yeah I think you need a nitrate actually to make glycerol explosive. It probably just thickens the ethanol and makes it stick to your skin and burn slower... Which makes all those hand sanitizers quality molotov cocktails :'^) You sure on that? It doesn't burn you so easily. I've lit myself on fire intentionally like this guy before |
traedMay 18, 2021 10:25 AM
Noboru said: Zefyris said: Do you have statistics of hospital diseases being wide-spread outside of hospitals?You do realize that sanitizer is what prevents a TON of lethal nosocomial diseases right ? Even outside of Covid hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. Now add to that any life that was saved by allowing fragile peoples to not catch Covid for example, and are we going to argue that using hand sanitizer is a bad thing? Really ? If risk group benefit from it, then for non risk group not propagating the disease to risk group is LITERALLY SAVING LIVES ? Hand sanitizer saves a tremendous amount of lives per year. smoking kills a tremendous amount of lives per year. But somehow, as predicted, some peoples here have managed to question the usage of hand sanitiser rather than the smoking habit. Fantastic. And absolutely typical. I'm not denying that hand sanetizers have their use in specified settings such as hospitals or when you want to disinfect a wound Also, if they are that essential, how could people live that long without any hand sanetizers in their normal, daily life? I'm not talking about the special cases of using it in a hospital or when you have an open wound, but rather about plain normal situations such as getting into your car Trying to prevent people from catching a virus that is that easily transmitted is pretty much as impossible as erradicating the common cold. The question should be rather how to boost immune response and there is more to it than just putting all the trust on some vaccines Also, there is also the question of improving treatment I'm questioning both the addiction and the obsessive behavior, but I see that it's much easier to get rid of an indoctrinated habit than of an addiction The whole question is silly. you're throwing suggestion left and right with no idea of how to apply them behind it, and seem to believe that the idea of using hand sanitizer regularly just came out of nowhere when the pandemic started. I personally had large bottle on my work desk and at home before that started, didn't need to rush and by some when the whole panic started, and I'm obviously not alone. This is common sense that it's preventing diseases to spread. Using hand sanitizer regularly has always been a good idea. professionnal cook and the like use it all the time. medical field uses it all the time, and any person properly educated on how disease spread will use it regularly. There is no debate, it's been known as facts for a long time. it's just that during a pandemic, it's a good idea to use it every times you've touched something foreign before you go and touch back something you own. like, your car after you came back from outside, opened building doors that everyone touch and the like. All I'm hearing is the vague excuses of someone who doesn't want to make the effort to be cautious just because he's not directly in the risk groups so that's just bothersome. BTW, how was the flu casualties number this winter compared to usual ? what about usually non lethal but annoying diseases (like gastroenteritis for example ?) that usually spread a lot during winter ? use of hand sanitizer is efficient and save lots of lives, prevent disease to spread in a non controlled manner. And anyone who refuses to see that, especially during a pandemic, I'm sorry but that's the plain truth, is a fool. Hope you're not one. |
|
Noboru said: Do you have statistics of hospital diseases being wide-spread outside of hospitals? What kind of question is this? Sounds like something an extraterrestrial would ask. You very well know already diseases are common. Also, if they are that essential, how could people live that long without any hand sanetizers in their normal, daily life? I'm not talking about the special cases of using it in a hospital or when you have an open wound, but rather about plain normal situations such as getting into your car It's a situational thing not an every moment thing. Trying to prevent people from catching a virus that is that easily transmitted is pretty much as impossible as erradicating the common cold. The question should be rather how to boost immune response and there is more to it than just putting all the trust on some vaccines The immune response is what causes part of the harm in the first place. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00149-1 Also, there is also the question of improving treatment Treatment is improved by not overloading hospitals with cases. Relying solely on damage control isn't good medicine for anything. I'm questioning both the addiction and the obsessive behavior, but I see that it's much easier to get rid of an indoctrinated habit than of an addiction By that logic wiping your arse every time after you take a shit is addictive obsessive behaviour indoctrinated on you. |
| @Zefyris: No, the question is not stupid when you give me the example how hand-sanetizers are good against hospital diseases when I've asked you about how using it in a car saves lifes Medical field and professional cooks are different settings, though I've never heard of cooks using hand sanetizers before Why is it a good idea and how much can it actually reduce the spread? You think, it spreads so easily, you'd immediately contaminate yourself when touching surfaces? Also, if you go that way, you'd have to sanetize the whole car every single time you drive outside, sanetize all your clothes or get into a bio hazard suit outside And even if you catch the virus, it's not guaranteed you will actually get sick. In fact, symptom-free and low symptom cases are much more common than the hard-core cases you hear about from your panic sources The infection disease numbers did go down in general, but at what price? - people losing their job because of the measures - way more strain on the official finances with the economic system in danger - less living joy in a positive way and more psychological damage in a negative one due to the isolation because of the measures I agree that it was a good idea during the first few months to be extra cautious, since no one knew how it would develop, but if after over a year of Covid-19, the fatality rate of the virus alone didn't rise enough to be statistically significant for the excess mortality and there has been only a small percentage of 4% on average of patients in the ICU because of Covid-19 over here and the "overstrain" was actually a decades-old problem for economic reasons that actually got worse with policies (hospitals get paid extra here when they have at least 75% ICU capacity in use, so what do they do? Reduce beds to get the capacity load higher!), then I feel pranked @traed: First question: see above If it's situational, then it should remain one. We don't need to create further situations to use hand-sanetizers in typical, trivial aspects of our lives By that logic of the article, there can be also a risk with some people with the vaccines when they trigger a too strong immune reaction and get sick because of it. So I mean stuff that actually helps, like sunlight because of Vitamin D and UV light. Or zinc You do know that there are drugs developed that help prevent sicknesses from becoming fatal? Also, if hospitals in the West are over-loaded, then it has economical reasons (see above) Except that the one thing has been established for several decades and the other thing just came up since last year |
| @Noboru By the very definition of using a car you are going to a foreign environment and interacting with a large amount of spaces that various people have been. Regardless of COVID it's just basic hygiene to wash your hands or use sanitizer. In a car this is also prevalent in cases where people get say fast food because people eating in their cars is a fairly frequent occurrence. Hand sanitizer wasn't invented in 2020, alchohol which is commonly used in sanitizers has been used as an antiseptic since like the 1300s, as a distinct product it has been commonly used for almost a century. Hand sanitizer in general can kill everything from the common cold to HIV at a 60% alcohol rate. Just because you've clearly never used it doesn't mean it isn't a common staple in highly public areas and blaming addiction for lighting a fire near a flammable liquid is not an acceptable excuse. My favorite part though is these bulleted points, how is hand sanitizer related to any of these? How is hand sanitizer causing people to lose jobs? Hand sanitizer is incredibly cheap, it costs $3 for a regular bottle and can last a small office a month, or are you going to advocate they take soap out of bathrooms because it's "a strain on office finances"? A person wants to do the bare minimum and wash their hands to prevent themselves from getting sick after a day of activity and suddenly they're joyless and isolated? These are a lot of logic leaps to defend smoking as opposed to hygiene. |
| I don't see how nicotin addiction is related in any way. Smoking is what made him use a lighter, but retardation is what makes people use a ligther in a confined space with ethanol in the air and all over their hands. I'm smoking since 15 years, never lit a smoke while filling my car's tank or while changing the propane bottle for my kitchen lol. I don't use perfume/deodorant/hair gel but if I did I wouldn't set myself on fire accidentaly either :'^) It's like all those people in Youtube comments who are all like "REEEEH U NO GLOVES" when they see someone work on a circular saw or some other death machine that would grip the fabric of a glove and shred your whole arm. WTF people >.> |
|
| @GamerDLM: Yes, it's general basic hygiene to wash your hands, but sanetizers is not something that most people have been doing since ages Also, you all act like not washing or disinfecting your hands when you're on the way and there is no toilet with a washbasin will automatically harm you. Like how could people only survive without it? True, hand sanetizers have been around for much longer, but they only started to be overly excessively be used in 2020 And you've clearly never read my older posts or even my posts here, because then you'd know that I do disinfect my hands, but lately mostly only after putting down the pathogen collector called "face mask" The bulleted points refer to the argument of how the measures including over-use of sanetizers apparently helped decrease the rate of infections Those measures include mask-wearing and even just the act of having disinfectant stuff everywhere causes a panic sentiment in the population. And those are just a fraction of the psychological causes those two can cause directly. The economical part is about the lockdowns Also, the "experts" did first say that washing hands is enough and that masks don't do anything and all of a sudden, masks are a must and disinfectants recommended? |
Noboru said: @GamerDLM: Yes, it's general basic hygiene to wash your hands, but sanetizers is not something that most people have been doing since ages Also, you all act like not washing or disinfecting your hands when you're on the way and there is no toilet with a washbasin will automatically harm you. Like how could people only survive without it? True, hand sanetizers have been around for much longer, but they only started to be overly excessively be used in 2020 And you've clearly never read my older posts or even my posts here, because then you'd know that I do disinfect my hands, but lately mostly only after putting down the pathogen collector called "face mask" The bulleted points refer to the argument of how the measures including over-use of sanetizers apparently helped decrease the rate of infections Those measures include mask-wearing and even just the act of having disinfectant stuff everywhere causes a panic sentiment in the population. And those are just a fraction of the psychological causes those two can cause directly. The economical part is about the lockdowns Also, the "experts" did first say that washing hands is enough and that masks don't do anything and all of a sudden, masks are a must and disinfectants recommended? Sanitizers have been the go to for "ages" when leaving to wash your hands becomes impractical or inconvenient. Such as when you get to your car because going out of your way to go to the bathroom to wash your hands would be inconvenient. Demand went up in 2020 obviously as did a general focus on sanitation. You literally just posted about putting sanitizer on an open wound. That is not only not the recommended usage but it is it is the wrong product to use to disinfect a wound especially if they're large or deep because they can damage healthy tissue and bacteria. Most people use rubbing alcohol because the high water content causes it to dissolve quickly or other antiseptics like hydrogen peroxide. The purpose of sanitizers is almost exclusively cleaning when soap and water aren't readily available. So if this is your modern knowledge of hand sanitizers I'm going to assume your historical knowledge is just as misguided. Most rational people aren't going to get panicked at the sight of disinfectant products or they'd be having panic attacks every time they look under their sink. Any perceived panic increase is going to be due to the spread of a new virus, not the sight of disinfectant products. Lockdowns have no place in this discussion, it's completely off topic. Also none of this shows how hygiene is the more appalling act than smoking or lighting fires near flammable liquid which is the argument for the thread. Early on the level of effectiveness of masks was unclear especially in the context of say cloth or disposable masks but there was also a major problem with hospital grade masks being unavailable because people bought them out so they weren't available where they were needed most (in hospitals). For medical purposes sanitizers and washing hands are often interchangeable and more often than not soap and water is the recommended option but it obviously lacks the portability of sanitizers. Disinfectants are generally for surface cleaning and the primary spread was long established as being through water droplets in which case disinfecting areas of frequent contact such as door handles has been generally recommended. |
| @GamerDLM: yes, but they never became used remotely as much as nowadays Also, they cannot replace washing your hands in all circumstances, like when there is dirt on them I've meant the act of disinfecting the hands in general. Hygienic sprays are nothing new either and have been used for disinfecting hands when there was a shortage of dedicated hand-sanetizers And you've missed the point: if the act of disinfecting your hands is so life-saving, how could people only survive all these years without it? And I'm talking about everyday life situations like just going inside your car, not visiting special places like a hospital where it has been the norm for visitors even long before Covid-19 Even if it doesn't lead to panic, it can lead to discomfort The whole measures make it seem like it's the end-time, yet there are no significant numbers of hospitalized or dead people with the primary cause of Covid-19 that would justify the whole panic Masks are nothing new, infection diseases are nothing new and corona viruses are nothing new, either. The second argument of there having been a shortage sounds more plausible But believe what you want. If politicians get provisions for mask deal, I have a hard time to believe that the whole mask orders were done for a benevolent reason |
| @Noboru Hand sanitizers usually contain other ingredients to make them effective at removing dirt or grime which is where they differ from disinfectants. They're similar but explicitly distinct products. As I pointed out to you, people have been using alcohol to disinfect since at least the 1300s. Also when the average life expectancy of people just 300 years ago by comparison was like 35 years old and infections were an extremely common and serious issue maybe the hygienic practices of people centuries ago isn't what you want to base your modern comparison on. Did people survive without following what is now considered basic hygiene practices and throwing their feces into the streets? Sure. Would any reasonable modern person want to replicate that quality of life? Absolutely not. Edit: Also the modern version of toilet paper wasn't invented until the late 1800s so to call back to an earlier argument when toilet paper has been around only slightly longer than hand sanitizer why are you more comfortable wiping your ass with paper than washing your hands with sanitizer? People didn't have commercial toilet paper for centuries so why aren't you using the communal sponge like they had centuries prior? No rational person experiences discomfort at the sight of cleaning products unless they're the one who has to do the cleaning. People are also actively discomforted by the presence of cigarette smoke because it makes it harder to breathe so maybe not the hill you want to die on for this argument. Also that last statement is explicitly false, hospitals being overloaded was a very pervasive and active concern and in high population areas it was an active problem and the spike in deaths was very noteworthy with Covid-19 cited as a major cause. Correct masks are new but they weren't commonly sought after especially in places like the US so the supply was very limited. Infectious diseases are obviously nothing new but this variation of Coronavirus falls into a once in a century pandemic category alongside the Spanish Flu. It's different from other variations of the coronavirus because of the mutations that caused it to so actively spread and caused more harmful effects. For example asymptomatic transmission was a mutation that allowed it to spread undetected and emphasized the need for quarantines. Prior variations of coronavirus also limited their area of effect to the upper respiratory tract where covid-19 spreads further through the respiratory system such as to the lungs which can cause fluid to build up making it more likely to cause lethal conditions such as pneumonia. One of the initial concerns was whether it was a true airborne mutation in which case common masks would have limited effectiveness but after it was established to spread via water droplets the efficiency of masks could be much more easily verified. But all of this was information that was available as early as March of 2020 so the fact that you still are actively getting basic details wrong should be a point of personal evaluation. Edit: Also the mask orders weren't a result of politicians buying in bulk or they would have still made it to the hospitals. Much like toilet paper early on people were buying them to hoard them or sell them for higher when the supply ran low. Something that could have theoretically been avoided had politicians worked out a deal with suppliers to prioritize hospitals. |
GamerDLMMay 19, 2021 7:49 PM
| @GamerDLM So hand sanetizers are like washing solution gels and not disinfection stuff? Disinfection has its legitmate use for wounds and in specific settings such as in a hospital The average life expectancy was that low, because there were lots of child and infant deaths that pushed the average much lower. If people became old enough to turn 30, they would much rather end up being at least 50-60, unless some war happened or there were too little food to survive Sicknesses were certainly there for adults as well, but they didn't play as much of a role as the various illnesses infants and children might have to have gone through for their survival And your historical comperision with what is basic hygiene practice is kinda off, same as the toilet paper comparison. Using toilet paper is something that has been commonly done in the West before current people have been born Taking stuff all the time with you to disinfect your hands however is new Unless you tell me that prior to the Covid-19 scare, you had hand sanetizers with you and could tell the same about many other people you know There is psychological and physical discomfort. Physical discomfort can be when something smells bad to you, which can be the smoke of cigarettes but also actual cleaning tools The mere presence of disinfectants everywhere could cause psychological discomfort because it suggests a threat that is over-blown Also, the last statement is explicitly correct. Hospitals were already at their limits way before Covid-19 for economical reasons. Covid-19 just came on top to all these cases, but it's just a very small percentage compared to people that come up primarily because of an accident or a more common sickness Yet, many States in the USA already turned away from mask mandates, because they have noticed that they don't help Umm no, SARS-CoV-2 is not the "once in a century pandemic category" even remotely comparable to the Spanish Flu. The death numbers are exaggerated due to wrong treatment and how it is defined If they had tested that aggressively during the Swine Flu scare, we would have seen much higher case numbers with many people just caring traces of an infection at most Also, if you just believe what the aerosol researchers have shown you, then that's something that can't be fully applied in a real-life scenario. Sure is that the risk to get infected is higher inside an unventilated room than outside, which was common knowledge even way before Covid-19. But higher risk doesn't automatically mean infection and infection doesn't automatically mean sickness and sickness doesn't automatically mean hospitalization with a life-threatening condition and/or longer, negative effects (long Covid), as much as the panic media displays this string of events as a very common outcome People have hair in their nose to filter out viruses. There are other things inside the body that prevent viruses from spreading around and even when they are already spread around, there is something called "immune system" that can destroy the viruses |
NoboruMay 20, 2021 4:54 AM
| @GamerDLM I need neither spoilers nor walls of texts to cut this short: With the recurring insults ("You'd have to be some kind of moron"/"should be a point of personal evaluation.") and factual wrong and off-putting, over-the top comparisons ("Also when the average life expectancy of people just 300 years ago by comparison was like 35 years old"/"In the same way your chances of getting struck by lightning would drastically increase if you attached yourself to a large metal object"/"but you aren't reasonably going around licking toilet seats just because your body has the functional ability to fend off potential infections."), I feel no reason to continue this conversation with you |
Noboru said: @GamerDLM I need neither spoilers nor walls of texts to cut this short: With the recurring insults ("You'd have to be some kind of moron"/"should be a point of personal evaluation.") and factual wrong and off-putting, over-the top comparisons ("Also when the average life expectancy of people just 300 years ago by comparison was like 35 years old"/"In the same way your chances of getting struck by lightning would drastically increase if you attached yourself to a large metal object"/"but you aren't reasonably going around licking toilet seats just because your body has the functional ability to fend off potential infections."), I feel no reason to continue this conversation with you Except those "over the top examples" are direct and valid rebuttals to your argument. Humans lived throughout history without these things ergo why do we need them now, was an argument you presented. So the point of say the average quality of life being 35 years old is an extremely significant point of context to admit as a counter argument and then I went on to further expand the context of that until you inevitably dropped the point. |
GamerDLMMay 21, 2021 5:37 PM
| Do we really have someone basically denying germ theory on MAL? lol |
 |
Narmy said: Not that I would know of, but we certainly have some people thinking that people in the middle age would normally get to live only around 35 years old, lolDo we really have someone basically denying germ theory on MAL? lol Also people not knowing the difference between over-the-top sanetation/disinfection and no sanetation/disinfection at all. For example, hand-sanetizers or disinfectants have always had their use in specific circumstances like for wounds or when visiting a hospital, but for the daily life, just using soap is more than enough. And if people could get infected that easily with sicknesses, we would have seen way more. Since I don't know how many actually always wash or sanetize their hands every single time before eating or drinking something, especially when they're outside. And for that, it was not normal until the Covid-19 craze to bring something with you to sanetize and/or disinfect the hands |
Noboru said: Narmy said: Not that I would know of, but we certainly have some people thinking that people in the middle age would normally get to live only around 35 years old, lolDo we really have someone basically denying germ theory on MAL? lol Also people not knowing the difference between over-the-top sanetation/disinfection and no sanetation/disinfection at all. For example, hand-sanetizers or disinfectants have always had their use in specific circumstances like for wounds or when visiting a hospital, but for the daily life, just using soap is more than enough. And if people could get infected that easily with sicknesses, we would have seen way more. Since I don't know how many actually always wash or sanetize their hands every single time before eating or drinking something, especially when they're outside. And for that, it was not normal until the Covid-19 craze to bring something with you to sanetize and/or disinfect the hands Who said anything about the middle ages? I said 300 years ago, that is not the middle ages or is your history knowledge as bad as your knowledge about basic biology? In fact to address your later point your defense of the low life expectancy during that time was it was just the seemingly rampant illness and child deaths. You wanna know the one thing that's been consistent since that time period? The immune system, yet despite your seeming proposal that it's some magical forcefield to repel and reject all illness it seemingly couldn't prevent all that rampant illness and child death. It's almost like there's a myriad of other factors that should be taken into serious consideration in modern history such as our newly established knowledge of sanitation and hygiene. But it definitely couldn't have anything to do with modern medical knowledge and sanitation practices, that would just be crazy. We should definitely make sure to not pursue and preserve those practices as they develop because people were doing just fine, you know aside from the rampant child death. |
GamerDLM said: If I have made a mistake with the definition of what constitutes the medieval ages, this is by far not as grave as the mistake people might think of when they hear "average age of 35 years" = "most people get to live only around 35"Who said anything about the middle ages? I said 300 years ago, that is not the middle ages or is your history knowledge as bad as your knowledge about basic biology? Because that's not how averages work and the average was so low because of child deaths and wars, for the most case. People could very well become 50 and beyond Sanitation plays a role, but it's not everything, either Stress and a weak(ened) mindset play a bigger role in risking getting ill than not getting perfect hygiene Besides, too much hygiene is even bad for the immune system, as it doesn't get to train enough, but well, you cannot talk to germophobes who think that not sanetizing and/or disinfecting their hands in the car will automatically make them sick or that taking hand-sanetizers and/or disinfectants will be the magic liquid "to repel and reject all illness" |
Noboru said: GamerDLM said: If I have made a mistake with the definition of what constitutes the medieval ages, this is by far not as grave as the mistake people might think of when they hear "average age of 35 years" = "most people get to live only around 35"Who said anything about the middle ages? I said 300 years ago, that is not the middle ages or is your history knowledge as bad as your knowledge about basic biology? Because that's not how averages work and the average was so low because of child deaths and wars, for the most case. People could very well become 50 and beyond Sanitation plays a role, but it's not everything, either Stress and a weak(ened) mindset play a bigger role in risking getting ill than not getting perfect hygiene Besides, too much hygiene is even bad for the immune system, as it doesn't get to train enough, but well, you cannot talk to germophobes who think that not sanetizing and/or disinfecting their hands in the car will automatically make them sick or that taking hand-sanetizers and/or disinfectants will be the magic liquid "to repel and reject all illness" Yes and average is a very significant measurement of the average quality of life during that period. Just because people can live longer doesn't matter in any metric, the oldest recorded person was like in their 120s but you don't measure societal structures based on the maximum age of humans it has no function. Comparatively when the metric of whether a person will live another 20 years during that period was determined by whether they would survive until they were 15 you would have to question the conditions children are raised in that would cause them to so easily succumb to illness. It plays a major role especially considering it's focusing on a time period where knowledge of germs was lacking at best. Even if a person conceptually had no knowledge of germs the circumstances of food preparation for example could drastically effect the health of a household and major factors in that would be sanitation and storage. Also those stress and hygiene aren't exclusive, hygiene on a fundamental level has been a significant cultural point dating back to as late as 2800 BC when they discovered the earliest instances of soap. By definition "too much" of anything is bad and a central part of my argument has been presenting that sanitizer is intended to be use as an alternative when soap is not available and a person has been to a foreign environment or in contact with objects people frequently interacted with. You're the only person who seems to consider that excessive use. I also never implied sanitizer will reject and prevent all illness. I've consistently presented it from a stance of significantly reducing risk, not negating risk due to the ability of the products to kill bacteria and viruses. You seem to be opposed to all measures that would reduce risk for seemingly no reason other than to defend smoking. |
| Would rather use hand sanitizer than public restroom soap heh Here's something that might send you dashing back to the washroom: Microbiologists at GOJO Industries and other institutions have discovered that a quarter of the soap in public restrooms is so contaminated that it leaves your hands filthier than before you washed them. In fact, some of the soap they tested contained so much fecal matter that you're almost better off washing your hands in the toilet after you flush it, said Charles P. Gerba , professor of microbiology in the University of Arizona's Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science. https://www.cleveland.com/business/2013/09/dirty_hands_think_twice_about_using_that_public_restroom_soap.html |
GamerDLM said: Except that I wasn't talking of more exceptional cases, but rather plain normal cases. 80-90 can be normal in these days, over 100 rather exceptional. 300 years ago, 50-60 could be normal, but like over 80 rather exceptionalJust because people can live longer doesn't matter in any metric, the oldest recorded person was like in their 120s but you don't measure societal structures based on the maximum age of humans it has no function. By definition "too much" of anything is bad and a central part of my argument has been presenting that sanitizer is intended to be use as an alternative when soap is not available and a person has been to a foreign environment or in contact with objects people frequently interacted with Did you or anyone else you know in person actually take sanetizer and/or disinfectant stuff for disinfecting hands (and not wounds) with you in the car before 2020? If not: why not?And lol, but I'm not defending smoking I also never implied sanitizer will reject and prevent all illness. That was in reference to another person's initial claim how sanetizers save lives and until now, I still haven't heard any convincing arguments how taking something like that with you all the time save lives. If anything, I'd like to see proof that someone neither taking sanetizers nor disinfectants for hand-disinfecting with them all the time in their cars will die off faster than the ones who takes either with similiar circumstances (smoker, non-smoker, drinker, etc)traed said: This looks like some advertising blog. You can't be for realWould rather use hand sanitizer than public restroom soap heh This is a similar thing as the study about contaminated face masks, except that masks are harmful in a wide-spread setting and that soap actually has a use for the general life And if you see the sudden rise in Fungi cases, particularly Black Fungus, it should be even less of a reason to wear masks in a wide-spread use, especially when people re-use it, which is what the vast majority of the people in many countries do |
NoboruMay 23, 2021 5:28 AM
| im more worried about those dumbasses hoarding gasoline and putting it in fucking plastic bags |
Noboru said: Except that I wasn't talking of more exceptional cases, but rather plain normal cases. 80-90 can be normal in these days, over 100 rather exceptional. 300 years ago, 50-60 could be normal, but like over 80 rather exceptional 50-60 was only normal amongst the wealthy and one can assume if a person is living a wealthy lifestyle all metrics being discussed will be notably better across the board. From sanitation, to food quality, to personal care, all of those used to be almost exclusively reserved for the wealthy. Which is why child mortality rate has such a strong impact on the average. Did you or anyone else you know in person actually take sanetizer and/or disinfectant stuff for disinfecting hands (and not wounds) with you in the car before 2020? If not: why not? And lol, but I'm not defending smoking Most people I know generally stock up on any products that will be immediately useful when interacting with large groups of people and a bottle of say purell falls under that. It's also the kind of product where a lot of people will just stash it in their glove department to have if they feel like they really need it. That was in reference to another person's initial claim how sanetizers save lives and until now, I still haven't heard any convincing arguments how taking something like that with you all the time save lives. If anything, I'd like to see proof that someone neither taking sanetizers nor disinfectants for hand-disinfecting with them all the time in their cars will die off faster than the ones who takes either with similiar circumstances (smoker, non-smoker, drinker, etc) It helps prevent the spread of easily avoidable illness. Since you keep bringing up hospitals as the most obvious location to find it if a person has ever gone to their doctor for a physical check up or if they're feeling ill the doctor will take 2 precautions guaranteed. 1. They will wear gloves and a mask while checking symptoms or for a physical examination and at the end the will remove and throw away those gloves 2. They will then use hand sanitizer that is guaranteed to be on their desk. This has two obvious functions, it not only drastically reduces the chance of the doctor getting sick but more importantly it reduces the chance that they'll infect other patients who may already have dangerous ailments. To put it in a more broad real world example, let's say there is a large gathering such as a meet and greet, convention or say a job fair where hundreds of people are regularly interacting. If even a handful of people have an illness if most people sanitized their hands before they arrive and after they leave that would further limit the chances of people getting sick. The reason this is a significant point is if a person is recently infected they won't likely immediately spread through speech because viruses and bacteria are rarely immediate and won't be active enough in a person's mouth until they develop symptoms. Making physical contact the most likely form of spread. If 100 people are infected by what is considered a minor illness the chances of it resulting in serious complications to somebody also gradually increases so the idea is to reduce spread to also reduce that risk. |
GamerDLMMay 23, 2021 10:48 AM
traed said: Would rather use hand sanitizer than public restroom soap heh Here's something that might send you dashing back to the washroom: Microbiologists at GOJO Industries and other institutions have discovered that a quarter of the soap in public restrooms is so contaminated that it leaves your hands filthier than before you washed them. In fact, some of the soap they tested contained so much fecal matter that you're almost better off washing your hands in the toilet after you flush it, said Charles P. Gerba , professor of microbiology in the University of Arizona's Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science. https://www.cleveland.com/business/2013/09/dirty_hands_think_twice_about_using_that_public_restroom_soap.html What they're for cleaning your hands? I thought they were sex toys :c |
|
Noboru said: traed said: This looks like some advertising blog. You can't be for realWould rather use hand sanitizer than public restroom soap heh This is a similar thing as the study about contaminated face masks, except that masks are harmful in a wide-spread setting and that soap actually has a use for the general life And if you see the sudden rise in Fungi cases, particularly Black Fungus, it should be even less of a reason to wear masks in a wide-spread use, especially when people re-use it, which is what the vast majority of the people in many countries do I was making a joke since you're being rediculous. I know it is questionable from the source of the study being a company trying to sell a product but it isn't totally wrong either. When toilets flush they release aerosols. This is why you're not supposed to keep your toothbrush by your toilet. The soap dispensers in public restrooms are just opened up and refilled usually. The air hand driers arent very clean themselves and unless the paper towel dispenser is either a pull out or automatic that can be contaminated as well since a lot of people dont wash their hands well plus there is the door to leave the restroom which many people touch without washing their hands. Not sure how with liquid soap....wait are you telling me they have bar soap in public toilets there and people share it? . |
| It surprises me everyday how many people are unaware of things that are dangerously flammable. hazarddex said: why WHY would you ever use anything with ALCHOAL in it next to a FLAME? |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |