Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for March 18th, 2020

The Trump Administration Drove Him Back to China, Where He Invented a Fast Coronavirus Test

leave a comment »

Subhead:

A federal crackdown on professors’ undisclosed outside activities is achieving what China has long struggled to do: spur Chinese scientists to return home. In this crisis, it’s costing the U.S. intellectual firepower.

David Armstrong, Annie Waldman, and Daniel Golden report in ProPublica:

On the fourth floor of the University of Florida cancer research building, the once-bustling laboratory overseen by professor Weihong Tan is in disarray. White lab coats are strewn over workbenches. Storage drums and boxes, including some marked with biohazard warnings, are scattered across the floor. A pink note stuck to a machine that makes copies of DNA samples indicates the device is broken.

No one is here on this weekday afternoon in February. On a shelf, wedged next to instruction manuals and binders of lab records, is a reminder of bygone glory: a group photo of Tan surrounded by more than two dozen smiling students and employees.

As the Florida lab sat vacant, a different scene unfolded half a world away in China, where a team of 300 scientists and researchers worked furiously to develop a fast, easy test for COVID-19. The leader of that timely project? Tan, the former Florida researcher.

The 59-year-old Tan is a stark example of the intellectual firepower fleeing the U.S. as a result of a Trump administration crackdown on university researchers with ties to China. Tan abruptly left Florida in 2019 during an investigation into his alleged failure to fully disclose Chinese academic appointments and funding. He moved to Hunan University in south-central China, where he now conducts his vital research.

Tan, a chemistry professor whose research has focused on diagnosing and treating cancer, quickly pivoted to working on a coronavirus test when the outbreak began in China. Boosted by a Chinese government grant, he teamed up with researchers at two other universities in China and a biotechnology company to create a test that produces results in 40 minutes and can be performed in a doctor’s office or in non-medical settings like airport screening areas, according to a 13-page booklet detailing the test’s development and benefits. It has been tried successfully on more than 200 samples from hospitals and checkpoints, according to the booklet, which Tan shared with a former Florida colleague. It’s not clear how widely the test is being used in China.

Epidemiologists say that testing is vital to mitigate the spread of the virus. But the U.S. has lagged well behind China, South Korea, and Italy in the number of people tested. It’s hard to know if Tan’s test would have made a difference. The slow U.S. ramp-up has been blamed largely on bureaucratic barriers and a shortage of chemical agents needed for testing. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 2:30 pm

Focus on the Incompetence

leave a comment »

Lest we forget. Graeme Wood writes in the Atlantic:

Tests for COVID-19 are not yet widely available in this country, but a test for gullibility is now available on Twitter in the form of Donald Trump’s feed. This morning, he referred to COVID-19 as “the Chinese virus.” In doing so, he was retreating, like a child to his blanket, to the kind of degenerate culture-war squabble in which he feels most secure and his supporters most aggrieved. Here’s the gullibility test: When you read “the Chinese virus,” are you most offended by Trump’s insistence on racializing the pandemic, or by the administration’s cowardice and incompetence, which may kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and have already decimated the economy several times over?

Before you answer, remember one more thing about the gullibility test: Its results can be read only by someone else. It is a truism in the world of sleight of hand that anyone who claims that she wasn’t fooled by a trick—but says so after the illusion is long finished—not only was fooled by it but is a perfect mark for the next effect. (Watch that same person during the trick, and you’ll see how she is utterly taken in.) The same is true of the gullibility test. You need the emotional equivalent of instant replay to see how the furnaces of your rage may have burned at the sight of that phrase, and how your reaction recalibrated only after you realized you were being tested.

The “Spanish flu” was so named even though the first outbreaks probably happened in Haskell County, Kansas. The virus likely traveled to Europe with American soldiers deployed in the First World War. It eventually killed 50 million people and spread all over Europe, but because Spain was neutral and its press relatively free, the reports of mass death started there, and the name stuck. Perhaps it was not coincidental that the swarthiest of European nations got its name appended to the worst modern plague—but then again, syphilis was “the French disease” to English speakers, “the Italian disease” to the French, and “the Christian disease” to Arabs. There is nothing new or particularly interesting about the urge to name a disease as if it were a visitor from a foreign land.

Still less novel is the use of such nomenclature to manipulate a political culture, both of the left and right, that is as defenseless against distraction as a baby presented with a jangling keychain. I can hear the keys jangling, and the coos of curiosity, every time I log on. You know where they come from: on the left, from people aghast that Trump would insist on a name that would needlessly stigmatize people from a certain place, or who look a certain way; on the right, from people who hear “the Chinese virus” and think, The virus came from Wuhan, dagnabbit. He’s right to call it by its name! Neither side is entirely wrong: “Chinese virus” does needlessly (and harmfully) stigmatize people, and the virus did start in Wuhan. But these reactions are for suckers. Controversies like these are a perfect example of what Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign manager, called “flooding the zone with shit”—distracting us from what matters with copious flushes of what doesn’t. And raw sewage is this president’s natural habitat, the medium in which he fights most effectively. His opponents are willingly lured into the sewers.

One difference this time is the particular racial minority Trump has chosen to target.  . .

Continue reading.

The article concludes:

The government of the United States has had months to prepare for a disaster that will, unmanaged, kill millions of people; instead, it frittered away its head start and doomed us to panic and desperation. Its failure to equip us with tests, ventilators, and protective equipment will kill our parents and grandparents in large numbers. Our heroic doctors and nurses will be fighting unarmored against the virus, and America’s society and economy will halt until the battle is over. All of this was, once we saw that the virus escaped containment in January, preordained—a mathematical certainty, if you will.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 1:59 pm

Fox News does a 180º turn overnight

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 1:48 pm

Posted in Daily life, GOP, Media, Video

Alton Brown’s hand-washing video

leave a comment »

Hmm. The video has been made private. This video describes the technique:

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 1:39 pm

Why aren’t grab-bars in buses and subways coated with copper?

leave a comment »

Shayla Love writes in Vice:

In 1852, physician Victor Burq visited a copper smelter in Paris’s 3rd arrondissement, where they used heat and chemicals to extract the reddish-brown metal. It was a dirty and dangerous job. Burq found the facility to be “in poor condition,” along with the housing and the hygiene of the smelters. Normally, their mortality rates were “pitiful,” he observed.

Yet, the 200 employees who worked there had all been spared from cholera outbreaks that hit the city in 1832, 1849, and 1852. When Burq learned that 400 to 500 copper workers on the same street had also mysteriously dodged cholera, he concluded that something about their professions—and copper—had made them immune to the highly infectious disease. He launched a detailed investigation into other people who worked with copper, in Paris and cities around the world.

In the 1854 to 1855 cholera epidemic, Burq could not find any deaths of jewellers, goldsmiths, or boilermakers—all those who worked with copper. In people in the army, he found that musicians who played brass instruments (brass is partly copper) were also protected.

In the 1865 Paris epidemic, 6,176 people died of cholera, out of a population of 1,677,000 people—that’s 3.7 people out of every 1,000. But of the 30,000 who worked in different copper industries, only 45 died—an average of around 0.5 per 1,000.

After visiting 400 different businesses and factories in Paris, all of which used copper, and collecting reports from England, Sweden, and Russia on more than 200,000 people, he concluded to the French Academies of Science and Medicine in 1867 that “copper or its alloys, brass and bronze, applied literally and pregnantly to the skin in the cholera epidemic are effective means of prevention which should not be neglected.”

Today, we have insight into why a person handling copper day in and day out would have protection from a bacterial threat: Copper is antimicrobial. It kills bacteria and viruses, sometimes within minutes. In the 19th century, exposure to copper would have been an early version of constantly sanitizing one’s hands.

Since then, studies have shown that copper is able to destroy the microbes that most threaten our lives. It has been shown to kill a long list of microbes, including norovirus, MRSA, a staph bacteria that has become resistant to antibiotics, virulent strains of E. coli that cause food-borne illness, and coronaviruses—possibly including the novel strain currently causing the COVID-19 pandemic.

If copper were more frequently used in hospitals, where 1 in 31 people get healthcare-acquired infections (HAI), or in high-traffic areas, where many people touch surfaces teeming with microbial life—it could play an invaluable role in public health, said Michael Schmidt, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Medical University of South Carolina, who studies copper. And yet, it is woefully absent from our public spaces, healthcare settings, and homes.

“What happened is our own arrogance and our love of plastic and other materials took over,” Schmidt said of the cheaper products more frequently used. “We moved away from copper beds, copper railings, and copper door knobs to stainless steel, plastic, and aluminum.”

any of the microbes that make us sick can live on hard surfaces for up to four or five days. When we touch those surfaces, the microbes can make it into our bodies through our nose, mouth, or eyes, and infect us.

On copper surfaces, bacteria and viruses die. When a microbe lands on a copper surface, the copper releases ions, which are electrically charged particles. Those copper ions blast through the outer membranes and destroy the whole cell, including the DNA or RNA inside. Because their DNA and RNA are destroyed, it also means a bacteria or virus can’t mutate and become resistant to the copper, or pass on genes (like for antibiotic resistance) to other microbes.

Before people even knew what bacteria and viruses were, they knew that copper could—somehow—ward off infection. The first recorded medical useof copper is from one of the oldest-known books, the Smith Papyrus, written between 2600 and 2200 B.C. It said that copper was used to sterilize chest wounds and drinking water. Egyptian and Babylonian soldiers would similarly put the shavings from their bronze swords (made from copper and tin) into their open wounds to reduce infections. A more contemporary use of copper: In New York City’s Grand Central Station, the grand staircase is flanked by copper handrails. “Those are actually anti-microbial,” Schmidt said.

Continue reading.

Later in the article:

Schmidt said that using copper along with standard hygiene protocols has been shown to reduce bacteria in health care settings by 90 percent. A study from 1983 found that hospital door knobs made of brass, which is part copper, barely had any E. coli growth on them, compared to stainless steel knobs which were “heavily colonized.” This is significant because of how rampant healthcare-acquired infections are: In the U.S. alone, there are about 1.7 million infections and 99,000 deaths linked to HAIs per year, which cost between $35.7 and $45 billion annually, from the extra treatments people need when they get infected.

And also:

Bill Keevil, a professor of environmental healthcare at the University of Southampton in England who has previously received funding from the Copper Development Association, said that if copper surfaces were put in communal areas where many people gather, it could help reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, like coronavirus 229E and also SARS-CoV2. Other than hospitals, he thinks the ideal locations for copper are public transportation systems, like buses, airports, subways. But he doesn’t stop there: He would also like to see copper used in sports equipment in gyms, like weights, along with other everyday objects, including shared office supplies, like pens.

In the preprint, SARS-CoV2 “liked copper least,” Antonio Regalado wrote in MIT Technology Review. “The virus was gone after just four hours.”

There’s much more—and it demonstrates why copper coatings must be required. it’s a no-brainer and is obviously easy to implement: a simple government regulation requiring copper-coated doorknobs, hand-rails, grab-bars, and so on would do it. No grandfathering in plastic and stainless, either: mandate a switch to copper-coated within four years (say).

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 12:33 pm

The Coronavirus and the Gutting of America’s Public-Health System

leave a comment »

Michael Specter writes in the New Yorker:

ew people have trouble understanding the purpose of public education or public housing: they are tangible programs that, at least in theory, are designed to improve our lives. Public-health accomplishments, however, are measured in an entirely different way: success is defined by what is prevented, not by what is produced. This creates an odd psychological dynamic.

When public-health programs are successful, they are invisible, and what is invisible is almost always taken for granted. Nobody cheers when they remain untouched by a disease that they hardly knew existed. That makes it easy for shortsighted politicians to deny long-term realities. And that is what they almost always do.

Members of Congress hardly made a peep in 2018, when the Trump Administration disbanded the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. The directorate was established after the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014 with a simple mission. Beth Cameron, its former head, recently wrote in the Washington Post: “to do everything possible within the vast powers and resources of the U.S. government to prepare for the next disease outbreak and prevent it from becoming an epidemic or pandemic.’’

I have never met an epidemiologist or virologist who expressed even the slightest doubt that such an outbreak would occur. Nor would anyone have to look hard for evidence that it would. In just the past twenty years, we have seen a rolling cascade of dangerous viral epidemics, including sarsmersavian influenzaEbola, and the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, which, alone, infected as many as 1.4 billion people. If it had been as lethal as current low-end mortality estimates of covid-19—about one per cent—as many as fourteen million would have died.

But we lucked out in 2009, because viruses do not decide how deadly they will turn out to be, and H1N1 was relatively mild. Public-health defense systems are created to protect us in the future, not in the past. Yet, in a single stroke, the Trump Administration fired the people whose job it was to plan for—and attempt to blunt—inevitable epidemics, such as the one that is currently bringing much of the world to its knees.

The results of such acts of denialism are painful. And, although Donald Trump deserves condemnation for constantly understating and ignoring this threat, he is hardly the first American leader to gut or ignore the very system that protects the people.

In 2000, the Institute of Medicine issued a report titled “Public Health Systems and Emerging Infections: Assessing the Capabilities of the Public and Private Sectors.” One of the report’s findings was that the basic infrastructure of the American public-health system, particularly at the state and local levels, is eroding. With that deterioration comes a diminished capacity to predict, detect, and respond to an emerging infectious disease. There have been scores of similar reports issued in the past twenty years—nearly each of which, like this one, was essentially ignored. This report was edited by the late Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, whose insights into the role of viruses and bacteria in the life of this planet should be read by every elected official with the power to appropriate even a single dollar toward our health care.

We also ignore the threat of diseases that have killed people for thousands of years. By the nineteen-seventies, it looked as if the United States was on the verge of eliminating tuberculosis as a significant cause of illness. So the political leadership simply stopped funding research programs. Experts warned that this neglect would guarantee a new epidemic, but nobody listened. As the number of TB infections grew, specialists became increasingly alarmed. Yet, every year between 1981 and 1987, the Reagan Administration opposed the very existence of a federal TB program, calling for its repeal in every new budget.

By 1992, the United States had created its first preventable epidemic—with new TB strains that proved resistant to conventional antibiotics. I wrote about this needless resurgence at the time, noting that the last time New York City had four thousand cases of TB, in 1967, more than a thousand beds in municipal hospitals were specifically assigned for tuberculosis patients. By 1992, when there were four thousand cases that were even more virulent, the number of available beds was fewer than seventy-five.

What will it take to interrupt this endless cycle of purposeful ignorance? It is not hard to predict what will happen after this pandemic fades—as eventually it will. If more people die and become sick than we expect, groups such as the World Health Organization will be denounced for their inability to protect lives. If the death toll is far lower than what is envisioned in the worst-case scenarios, people will denounce the same groups, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as needlessly alarmist and blame them for the collapse of the economy.

There have been deep, systemic, and horrifying failures—most notably our inability to mobilize a testing regime that would provide the data that health-policy leaders need to make every other decision. You cannot understand the cause of a disease, its natural history, or the best ways to prevent infection without the ability to test the population. We have long had that ability—there are hundreds of American universities and medical centers that could create a useful diagnostic for covid-19—but we have never bothered to properly prepare.

At a White House briefing on Tuesday, the President attempted to suggest that the federal response had been adequate. That is far from true. Trump has also suggested that the Obama Administration acted badly during the 2009 H1N1 epidemic and stated, as proof, that seventeen thousand people died. He was right about the death toll; what he seems not to understand is that that number is far lower than the death rate in any average influenza season. . .

Continue reading. There’s more, and the paywall is down for the epidemic.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 12:21 pm

How Racist Is Trump’s Republican Party?

leave a comment »

Thomas B. Edsall writes in the NY Times:

Is the modern Republican Party built on race prejudice, otherwise known as racism?

Has it become, as Stuart Stevens — a media consultant with an exceptionally high win-loss record who was a lead strategist for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 — puts it, the “white grievance party”?

Stevens has impeccable Republican credentials. In addition to Bush, his clients have included Mitt Romney and other current and former senators — Roger WickerRoy BluntChuck GrassleyRob PortmanThad CochranDick LugarJon KylMel Martinez and Dan Coats — and current and former governors: Larry HoganHaley BarbourBill WeldTom Ridge and Bob Riley.

Nonetheless, Stevens’s forthcoming book, “It Was All A Lie,” makes the case that President Trump is the natural outcome of a long chain of events going back to the 1964 election when Barry Goldwater ran for president as an opponent of the Civil Right Act passed earlier that year.

“As much as I’d love to go to bed at night reassuring myself that Donald Trump was some freak product of the system — a ‘black swan,’” Stevens writes, “I can’t do it”:

I can’t keep lying to myself to ward off the depressing reality that I had been lying to myself for decades. There is nothing strange or unexpected about Donald Trump. He is the logical conclusion of what the Republican Party became over the last fifty or so years, a natural product of the seeds of race, self-deception, and anger that became the essence of the Republican Party. Trump isn’t an aberration of the Republican Party; he is the Republican Party in a purified form.

“I have no one to blame but myself,” he declares on the first page. “What I missed was one simple reality: it was all a lie.”

What were the lies? That the Republican Party “espoused a core set of values: character counts, personal responsibility, strong on Russia, the national debt actually mattered, immigration made America great, a big-tent party.”

And what is the truth? The Republican Party is “just a white grievance party.”

Race, Stevens writes,

has defined the modern Republican Party. After Goldwater carried only southern states and received a record low of 7 percent of the black vote, the party faced a basic choice: do what was necessary to appeal to more nonwhite voters, or build a party to win with white voters. It chose the latter, and when most successfully executed, a race-based strategy was the foundation of many of the Republican Party’s biggest victories, from Nixon to Trump.

In fact, Stevens told me, “race is the original sin of the modern Republican Party:”

With Trump, the Party has grown comfortable as a white grievance party. Is that racist? Yes, I think it is. Are 63 million plus people who supported Trump racist? No, absolutely not. But to support Trump is to make peace with white grievance and hate.

Stevens’s comment demonstrates the difficulty many analysts have pinning down the meaning of racism and the distinction — if there is one — between being a racist and voting for a racist. To further examine this complexity, I questioned a range of experts.

Darren Davis is a political scientist at Notre Dame and a co-author, with David C. Wilson, a political scientist at the University of Delaware, of “Re-examining Racial Resentment: Conceptualization and Content” and “Racial Resentment and Targeted Anger at Barack Obama and the Federal Government.” In 2017, Davis delivered a lecture at Washington University in St Louis, “The Continuing Significance of Old Fashioned Racism: Skin Color & Implicit Racial Attitudes Among Survey Interviewers.

In an email, Davis offered a succinct definition of racism and racist: . . .

Continue reading. There’s much more.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 11:55 am

Soap and water are more effective than hand sanitizer

leave a comment »

Ferris Jabr writes in the NY Times:

. . . People typically think of soap as gentle and soothing, but from the perspective of microorganisms, it is often extremely destructive. A drop of ordinary soap diluted in water is sufficient to rupture and kill many types of bacteria and viruses, including the new coronavirus that is currently circling the globe. The secret to soap’s impressive might is its hybrid structure.

Soap is made of pin-shaped molecules, each of which has a hydrophilic head — it readily bonds with water — and a hydrophobic tail, which shuns water and prefers to link up with oils and fats. These molecules, when suspended in water, alternately float about as solitary units, interact with other molecules in the solution and assemble themselves into little bubbles called micelles, with heads pointing outward and tails tucked inside.

Some bacteria and viruses have lipid membranes that resemble double-layered micelles with two bands of hydrophobic tails sandwiched between two rings of hydrophilic heads. These membranes are studded with important proteins that allow viruses to infect cells and perform vital tasks that keep bacteria alive. Pathogens wrapped in lipid membranes include coronaviruses, H.I.V., the viruses that cause hepatitis B and C, herpes, Ebola, Zika, dengue, and numerous bacteria that attack the intestines and respiratory tract.

When you wash your hands with soap and water, you surround any microorganisms on your skin with soap molecules. The hydrophobic tails of the free-floating soap molecules attempt to evade water; in the process, they wedge themselves into the lipid envelopes of certain microbes and viruses, prying them apart.

“They act like crowbars and destabilize the whole system,” said Prof. Pall Thordarson, acting head of chemistry at the University of New South Wales. Essential proteins spill from the ruptured membranes into the surrounding water, killing the bacteria and rendering the viruses useless.

In tandem, some soap molecules disrupt the chemical bonds that allow bacteria, viruses and grime to stick to surfaces, lifting them off the skin. Micelles can also form around particles of dirt and fragments of viruses and bacteria, suspending them in floating cages. When you rinse your hands, all the microorganisms that have been damaged, trapped and killed by soap molecules are washed away.

On the whole, hand sanitizers are not as reliable as soap. Sanitizers with at least 60 percent ethanol do act similarly, defeating bacteria and viruses by destabilizing their lipid membranes. But they cannot easily remove microorganisms from the skin. There are also viruses that do not depend on lipid membranes to infect cells, as well as bacteria that protect their delicate membranes with sturdy shields of protein and sugar. Examples include bacteria that can cause meningitis, pneumonia, diarrhea and skin infections, as well as the hepatitis A virus, poliovirus, rhinoviruses and adenoviruses (frequent causes of the common cold).

These more resilient microbes are generally less susceptible to the chemical onslaught of ethanol and soap. But vigorous scrubbing with soap and water can still expunge these microbes from the skin, which is partly why hand-washing is more effective than sanitizer. Alcohol-based sanitizer is a good backup when soap and water are not accessible.

In an age of robotic surgery and gene therapy, it is all the more wondrous that a bit of soap in water, an ancient and fundamentally unaltered recipe, remains one of our most valuable medical interventions. Throughout the course of a day, we pick up all sorts of viruses and microorganisms from the objects and people in the environment. When we absentmindedly touch our eyes, nose and mouth — a habit, one study suggests, that recurs as often as every two and a half minutes — we offer potentially dangerous microbes a portal to our internal organs.

As a foundation of everyday hygiene, hand-washing was broadly adopted relatively recently. In the 1840s Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, discovered that if doctors washed their hands, far fewer women died after childbirth. At the time, microbes were not widely recognized as vectors of disease, and many doctors ridiculed the notion that a lack of personal cleanliness could be responsible for their patients’ deaths. Ostracized by his colleagues, Dr. Semmelweis was eventually committed to an asylum, where he was severely beaten by guards and died from infected wounds. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 11:39 am

We’re not going back to normal: Social distancing is here to stay

leave a comment »

The pandemic may have triggered a mutation in social memes, one that will persist. Gideon Lichfield writes in MIT’s Technology Review:

To stop coronavirus we will need to radically change almost everything we do: how we work, exercise, socialize, shop, manage our health, educate our kids, take care of family members.

We all want things to go back to normal quickly. But what most of us have probably not yet realized—yet will soon—is that things won’t go back to normal after a few weeks, or even a few months. Some things never will.

You can read all our coverage of the coronavirus/Covid-19 outbreak for free, and also sign up for our coronavirus newsletter. But please consider subscribing to support our nonprofit journalism.

It’s now widely agreed (even by Britain, finally) that every country needs to “flatten the curve”: impose social distancing to slow the spread of the virus so that the number of people sick at once doesn’t cause the health-care system to collapse, as it is threatening to do in Italy right now. That means the pandemic needs to last, at a low level, until either enough people have had Covid-19 to leave most immune (assuming immunity lasts for years, which we don’t know) or there’s a vaccine.

How long would that take, and how draconian do social restrictions need to be? Yesterday President Donald Trump, announcing new guidelines such as a 10-person limit on gatherings, said that “with several weeks of focused action, we can turn the corner and turn it quickly.” In China, six weeks of lockdown are beginning to ease now that new cases have fallen to a trickle.

But it won’t end there. As long as someone in the world has the virus, breakouts can and will keep recurring without stringent controls to contain them. In a report yesterday (pdf), researchers at Imperial College London proposed a way of doing this: impose more extreme social distancing measures every time admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) start to spike, and relax them each time admissions fall. Here’s how that looks in a graph. . .

Continue reading. There’s more, including the graph.

It’s going to be hard on extroverts.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 9:41 am

Planet Java Hive and the Rockwell 6S: A very pleasurable shave

with one comment

I figure that 6 shaves is enough — for me, since I skip shaving on Sundays, six days is a (shaving) week. So today I’m back with my regular double-edge razors, and I find that absence has made the heart grow fonder.

First, the wonderful CK-6 lather, today generated by Phoenix Artisan’s Green Ray brush and the inestimable Planet Java Hive, which stayed in my mind after using its aftershave balm as an example yesterday. I do love the coffee + honey combination.

And the Rockwell R3 plate suits me to a T, with a wonderful smoothness of cutting, great comfort, and extreme efficiency. Three passes to a perfect result, and then a splash of Planet Java Hive.

The day already seems very good.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 March 2020 at 8:40 am

Posted in Shaving

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: