Editing Talk:1161: Hand Sanitizer

Does anyone think the "peak" referred to in the title text could be the 1918 flu pandemic? Or even the bird flu outbreak?[[User:Chexwarrior|Chexwarrior]] ([[User talk:Chexwarrior|talk]]) 10:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:I'm thinking the "hipster" comment is a reference to how hipsters always think stuff was better (or it peaked) in the past so it must be on the downslide.--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That 99.99% number on the hand sanitizer is probably made up anyway. Any actual scientific measure of effectivity would need to take into account different resistance of different types of germs. So, question is, is the sanitizer more or less effective? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:I actually had in the back of my mind that the 99.99% figure wasn't a "dead germ count," but the number of strains of germs the sanitizer has the ability to kill. i.e. there are some strains which it doesn't kill. &mdash;[[Special:Contributions/98.122.166.235|98.122.166.235]] 12:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:: Actually 99.99% isn't made up, its actually derived from how accurate the lab tests are. Most antibacterials, even plain 15% alcohol, will kill ALL infectious bacteria and viruses but you cannot confirm this because there are errors inherent in the tests such as contamination from the environment or more often that the samples have to grow (in the case of bacteria) or infect (in the case of viruses) to give a measurable result since you cannot tell by normal observation which are dead and which are live. With the tiny numbers that may survive the likelihood of infection or growth is low, resulting in errors with even the strongest chemical agents. --[[Special:Contributions/31.205.24.175|31.205.24.175]] 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

::: 15% alcohol is hardly effective (please state source), most effective is 70%, which means anything lower doesn't kill all bacteria. Alcohol is also only partially effective against viruses. It needs other agents to boost its effectivity. [[Special:Contributions/178.197.254.3|178.197.254.3]] 09:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 200 million times .01% actually be equivalent to 200 million times .0001, which equals 20 000 germs? [[Special:Contributions/134.169.169.121|134.169.169.121]] 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:: The error depends on the calculator, I think. In my calculator 200000000 ✕ 0.01% = 20000 - [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I wonder if he will change it when he notices? [[Special:Contributions/24.93.151.187|24.93.151.187]] 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 2 000 000 * .01% = 20 000 is correct
:: ... Except that the calculation should be 0.01% of 200`000`000 - [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:: It is perfectly fine to write 200000000*0.01%. "%" is simply shorthand for 1/100. 09:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite aside from the arithmetic, right now the US has two epidemics: influenza and norovirus, which is often known by the misnomer of "stomach flu."  According to infectious disease experts, while alcohol is likely pretty effective against bacteria and SOME viruses including influenza, alcohol is probably NOT very effective against norovirus.  The best way to stop the spread of norovirus: frequent hand washing with soap and water.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"The humor (if a worldwide disaster can be said to be humorous)" I found this funnier than the comic, really. [[Special:Contributions/189.123.133.183|189.123.133.183]] 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one had commented in 2020 :P Wow, I just had a weird thought; I wonder how many of the earlier commenters on here are still alive? Statistically... [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)