Proper hand care will fend off H1N1

Tweet

Column by Shannon Frazer

I’m sure people are sick of hearing about people being sick, particularly with the publicized H1N1 flu.  Prevalence of proactive behavior is seen all over campus: hand sanitizer dispensers placed in several university buildings, instructors specifically requested to tell students the importance of recognizing flu symptoms and altering attendance policies to match, and most recently, the UK Hospital temporarily having to change its visitation policy for visitors of patients under 18 years of age to parents only.

Does Wally Cat and his healthy hygiene initiatives strike a bell with anyone (think bathroom stall posters in university buildings or computer pop-ups at some on-campus labs)?  All of these measures show the severity of the situation and the necessity to keep flu levels to a minimum, but some might wonder how to successfully do that.

According to the American Medical Association, alcohol-based hand sanitizer is comparable to soap and water in its effectiveness in preventing the amount of an influenza pathogen on the hands.  The organization reinforces on its Web site that “hand hygiene, no matter how it is done, is a vital part of infection control.”  The site claims it ultimately comes down to what is most practical for the individual; soap and water is usually cheaper and is the best option for heavily dirtied hands, whereas “alcohol-based hand rubs are quicker, and tend to be easier on the skin as well as more portable,” an advantage for health care workers who are always on the move.

However, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) printed a report in 2007, holding an opposing viewpoint.  It stated, “There is no evidence that proper hand hygiene prevents transmission of the flu.”  So who’s got it right?

Personally, I have always been skeptical of hand sanitizer.  Many of them declare they kill 99.99 percent of bacteria and germs, but the thought of essentially replacing traditional hand washing for a concoction in a bottle leaves me a bit leery.  Sure, I can see how hand sanitizer’s portability and easy access trumps a practice that requires a sink, a faucet and time enough to hum the ABCs two times through to ensure thorough cleanliness; when I look at it that way, I wonder why hand sanitizer hasn’t completely replaced sink usage.

But then I think about all of the times when having a sink nearby has come in handy. (Anyone ever dissected an animal for class? Even with gloves, who wants to be given a squirt of hand sanitizer following the assignment and then be sent on their merry way?)

My point is, although hand sanitizer seems in most cases to be the easier of the two methods, sometimes I have to be thankful to have antiquated hygiene methods still available to me for my own satisfaction and sanity.  Even if the CMA’s claim has any validity and we’re all going to get the flu by some means or another anyway, no matter what measures we take, I’d still rather stick to satisfied sanity, thank you very much.

With that being said, I advise everyone to practice some form of proper hand hygiene.  Doing something preventative has got to be better than doing nothing, and I’m sure your neighbor will be grateful that you did. After all, no one likes to be sick.

Shannon Frazer is a journalism senior. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.