> My memory is that, at the very beginning, it wasn't known how COVID spread and that it was recommended out of an abundance of caution. Is my memory incorrect?

> My memory is that, at the very beginning, it wasn't known how COVID spread and that it was recommended out of an abundance of caution. Is my memory incorrect? People certainly used allusions to uncertainty; despite the fact it was always known that it was a coronavirus that worked exactly like all the others we've known about for half a century or more. Those appeals to uncertainty seem to have been a useful marketing tool in the sale of ineffective solutions. Like killing peoples pets or spraying the streets or wearing masks outdoors. Appealing to uncertainty is not evidence based policy. > Was there ever public policy around hand sanitizer? Yes. And health advice. Indeed in one African country i was forced to use hand sanitiser at gunpoint by a G4S guard. Such a grave error in telling lies about what is effective gives despots real opportunity. Many western countries spent tens of millions concocting marketing materials telling people how to correctly wash their hands and how often. Huge amounts of government were spent [wasted] on procuring it, as is the subject of this post. > Which has more evidence of efficacy: phrenology or disinfectants? Disinfecting streets for a droplet transmitted coronavirus is less effective than phrenology in the different magesteria they inhabit. At least the placebo effect of phrenology or its positive reinforcement probably helped some people psychologically when it was in vogue.