Mum sparks debate after revealing why she NEVER washes new clothes, bedding or charity buys – but whose side are you on?
But one mum has got people talking after revealing her routine when buying new products.
1
Taking to TikTok, the mum-of-four shared a video on her social media page @ livsmeh, which currently has 10.9K followers.
Livvy responded to someone who commented on a previous video of hers saying: 'you must wash new bedding.'
However, the mum responded with something slightly different, and it has very much got people talking.
She explained that she 'never' washes new bedding and has never washed her new clothes either.
Livvy also added: 'I sometimes don't even wash clothes I get from the charity shop. That's gross isn't it?'
She explained to her followers that she didn't understand why people would wash their new bedding or new clothes.
The mum then went on to explain that she didn't even wash the brand-new newborn clothes she bought.
Livvy then asked her followers: 'What am I doing wrong here? Why? They're new.'
Before then telling her followers that she didn't want to know the answer to those questions.
After 24 hours of the video being shared, Livvy's video received over 10.2k views, with 90 people rushing to the comments section to share their thoughts.
I got Ringworm working in the changing room of a major high street store - it's why you should always wash new clothes
Some were mixed.
One wrote: 'Same here. Mum-of-five, new bedding straight on, new clothes straight in the drawers, charity shop clothes sniff test will decide whether it gets washed or not.
'If it smells like the person smokes it goes through the washer twice, if not in the drawer they go!'
A second added: 'If you wash them, then you have to dry them and then you have to put them away. No thank you.'
A third said: 'Not gross in my opinion.'
However, others didn't agree.
One commented: 'Always wash before use.
"One of my kids got hives from the factory finishings on a body warmer.'
A second said: 'You lost me at a charity shop.'
Whilst someone else wrote: 'Oh I'm more than fine with new clothes and bedding, but the charity shop clothes not being washed has been scratching all over a little bit.'
Another added: 'The charity shop non-washing has kinda given me the ick.'
Laundry tips
Catherine Green, sustainable cleaning expert at smol shared her laundry tips.
How often should you be remaking your bed?
When it comes to your bed, maintaining a hygienic sleep setup can actually improve your sleep quality, helping you start every day better.
Most people shed 500 million skin cells per day and a lot of that ends up in bed for dust mites to feed on. And those with asthma or allergies might see symptoms worsen by sleeping on dirty sheets!
You want to be washing your sheets once a week - or every 10 days if you don't suffer from allergies and wear nightclothes. Bedding builds up with sweat, skin cells and oils quickly, even if it doesn't look dirty.
Using an effective detergent like smol's will still give you a great clean on a 20°C cycle - that's better for the planet and your energy bills!
What temperature do smol recommend then?
For your regular weekly washes I recommend washing most loads at 20°C for 30 minutes. It's gentler on fabrics, slashes energy use, and still delivers excellent stain removal with the right detergent. A colder wash can actually be more effective if you opt for a bio detergent as its enzymes need cooler water; too hot and they lose their ability to digest stains. A wash at 60°c (unless you have silk sheets) every now and again can help kill off dust mites and other nasties.
What's the difference between bio and non-bio detergent?
Bio detergents contain enzymes, which are especially good at breaking down tough stains like food, grass, or sweat. It's best used in mid to low temperature washes (ideally between 20-40°C) as anything hotter can cause them not to work effectively.
Non-bio skips the enzymes, which in turn makes it more suitable for those with sensitive skin or allergies. Although non-bio doesn't contain enzymes, it's still great at removing stains and keeping your clothes clean, you just may need to use a slightly higher temperature setting to aid with the cleaning process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Foreign aid cuts could lead to millions more dying from superbug infections by 2050, study warns
The growing global health crisis of superbug infections could undo decades of progress in medicine, according to a new report, which warns that foreign aid cuts could lead to millions more dying worldwide by 2050. Without collective global action, growing cases of infections caused by such antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) microbes could cost the global economy nearly $2trillion, the UK government-funded research says. The research forecasts the future impact of AMR on global economies under different scenarios of interventions across regions, income groups, and countries. Bacteria have been evolving resistance to the antibiotics used by doctors to kill them in recent years, causing even what used to be the simplest-to-treat infections to become potentially life-threatening. With scientists locked in a race to create and improve access to a 'new generation' of drugs capable of defeating even the most resistant of such superbugs, global research funding cuts risk stalling progress. If the superbug spread continued at the same trend as seen since 1990 in a 'business-as-usual' scenario, it could lead to nearly 39 million deaths between 2025 and 2050, a growing body of studies suggests. However, if there is improved access to antibiotics against such bacterial infections, it could avert 90 million deaths over this period, the latest report estimates. Better access to antibiotics could lead to a $19bn annual reduction in healthcare costs by 2050, they say. 'This scenario would increase global GDP by $269bn over the business-as-usual scenario. The health benefits from this intervention would be worth half a billion dollars if disability-adjusted life years are valued at the GDP per capita of a given country,' scientists noted. In comparison, the worst-case scenario of an accelerated rise in AMR at the rate of the bottom 15 per cent of countries could lead to an additional 6.7 million people dying from infections, they warn. The report comes following the UK government's Thursday announcement that it was axing the Fleming Fund – a major £265m British programme combating AMR in developing countries. 'Without effective interventions, health care costs could increase by $176bn per year by 2050, and global output could be $1.7trillion lower than in the business-as-usual scenario,' the report noted. Previous research suggests that combating superbugs would require 6 to 15 new drugs developed for treatment per decade. Scientists estimate this could require an annual additional research and development cost of $2.2bn. 'If all high-income countries funded this research and development in proportion to their GDP, it would cost them 0.0036 per cent of GDP in 2025,' they wrote. 'For these new drugs to provide the promised health benefits, people across the world must have access to them. We estimate that it would cost $59bn to ensure that all countries have outcomes for bacterial infections that match the quality of treatment currently available in the 85th percentile of countries,' researchers noted. Considering these economic and health benefits, scientists say there would be 'excellent value for money' offered by these global interventions.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Bluetongue has been detected in England. Here's what you should know
A tiny midge, no bigger than a pinhead, is bringing UK farming to its knees. The culprit? A strain of the bluetongue virus that's never been seen before. As of July 1, the whole of England has been classed as an 'infected area' due to bluetongue virus serotype 3 (BTV-3). There are movement restrictions and testing in place in Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland. No animals from England – or that have passed through England – are allowed to attend this year's Royal Welsh Show on July 21-24, for example. The virus, which causes illness and death in sheep, cattle, goats and other ruminants, is spread by biting midges. Although it poses no risk to humans and can't be transmitted from one animal to another, the latest outbreak is more severe than previous ones. And it could cause lasting damage to UK farming. Bluetongue isn't new to the UK, however. A different strain, BTV-8 was detected in 2007 and contained. But BTV-3 is a different story. First detected in the Netherlands in late 2023, it was quickly spotted in the UK, where an early containment effort initially appeared successful. But the virus made a comeback in autumn 2024 – and this time it spread. On its second attempt, the virus was able to circulate and caused an outbreak. With little existing immunity, BTV-3 has now established itself, prompting concerns about animal welfare, food production and farming livelihoods. What does the disease do? Sheep tend to be the most severely affected, though all ruminants are at risk. Clinical signs are species-specific but can include swelling of the face, congestion, nasal discharge, ulcers in the mouth and nose, difficulty breathing and abortion or birth deformities. Bluetongue can cause the animal's tongue to swell. It can also turn blue from a lack of blood flow – although this is somewhat rare. Bluetongue disease causes suffering in animals, and while there is a vaccine, there is no treatment for the disease once it's contracted. BTV-3 appears to be more lethal than earlier strains. In the Netherlands, vets report that BTV-3 is causing more severe symptoms than BTV-8 did. Vets in England reported that in some herds 25-40% of cows failed to get pregnant, and there was a high rate of birth defects and stillborn calves. One farm in Suffolk started the calving season with 25% of their cows not pregnant and ended with just 48 calves from 97 cows. Belgium has seen a fall in calf births, reduced milk deliveries and higher mortality in small ruminants compared to the previous three years. How is it spread? Bluetongue virus is transmitted by midges from the Culicoides genus. These are tiny, biting insects that thrive in mild, wet conditions. Multiple midges can bite the same animal, and it only takes one of them to carry BTV before that animal becomes a host for further transmission. When animals are transported long distances, infected individuals can be bitten again and introduce the virus to previously uninfected midge populations. Climate change is making outbreaks like this more likely. Milder winters and cooler, wetter summers are ideal for midges, increasing both their numbers and their biting activity. While there's no danger to human health, the consequences of BTV-3 are far-reaching. Limitations on movement, exports and imports are being imposed to help prevent the spread of the disease, but this could also hamper farming practices and trade. The disease and its associated restrictions pose another source of stress for farmers, 95% of whom have ranked mental health as the biggest hidden problem in farming. Genetic pick and mix One of the reasons bluetongue is so tricky to manage is its ability to evolve. It has a segmented genome, meaning its genetic material, in this case RNA, is split into ten segments. This characteristic is exclusive to 'reassortment viruses' and means that they can easily exchange segments of RNA. It's like a genetic pick and mix with ten different types of sweets that come in an unlimited number of flavours. This allows BTV to create new, genetically distinct 'serotypes', which may have a selective advantage or a disadvantage. Those with an advantage will emerge and spread successfully, while those with a disadvantage will not emerge at all. This process, known as 'reassortment', is partly responsible for the numerous influenza pandemics throughout history and has even allowed diseases to jump the species barrier. Although bluetongue doesn't affect humans directly, its spread poses a growing threat to the UK's livestock sector and food supply. It's important to learn from other countries that are further along in the BTV-3 outbreak so that the likely effects can be anticipated in the UK.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
