Are you an anti-baxxer?

[horizon]

If you are, you might be interested in an advert I clicked on the home page of the Guardian for this product on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carex-Antibact ... PTFW5ZVSGQ

Yes, Carex will get rid of 99.9% of bacteria. In case you are wondering, an anti-baxxer is someone who believes in theories that purport, contrary to medical science, that all bacteria are dangerous and must be killed. Dettol is their usual go-to product which claims to kill 99% of household "germs".

I'm surprised that the Guardian, which normally prides itself on following the science, is allowing itself to be used as a platform by the anti-baxxers. Their weird theories have generally been debunked by mainstream science (see https://askabiologist.asu.edu/beneficial-bacteria and many other sources). Mostly the anti-baxxers are ignored by the mainstream media but by using adverts in this way they are sneakily getting the front page exposure that they crave. I'm surprised that the Guardian (and Amazon for that matter) allows itself to be used in this way.

[Boring_Username]

Yes this recent fad for disinfectants is completely inexplicable

[pwa]

I do use Carex liberally at work, because it is about all I can do to protect myself against Covid on surfaces, but I admit that I have no idea how effective a 70% alcohol product is against a virus which, after all, is not bacteria. I couldn't care less about bacteria.

I probably use more anti-bac hand gel in one shift now than I did in my whole life upto Covid.

[Ride-sleep-repeat]

I've noticed an advert for such a product on TV recently.Lifebouy,also sold on Amazon.

They're making a quick buck,or possibly a few million,from this virus.

[Ellieb]

Sorry. Can I just confirm that we are in the midst of a global viral pandemic & you are complaining about someone advertising a disinfectant which kills said virus & is one of the few effective ways of limiting viral spread we have. At least until the vaccine is widespread. The ‘good’ bacteria won’t stop you catching Covid.

[Ellieb]

I do use Carex liberally at work, because it is about all I can do to protect myself against Covid on surfaces, but I admit that I have no idea how effective a 70% alcohol product is against a virus which, after all, is not bacteria. I couldn't care less about bacteria.

I probably use more anti-bac hand gel in one shift now than I did in my whole life upto Covid.

70% alcohol destroys the virus by drying out the lipid coating surrounding it.

[DevonDamo]

I get horizon's point. Destroying all bacteria in your environment isn't necessarily a good thing. I've got a GP buddy who's quite vociferous about the benefits of being exposed to general bugs in your environment - there's a theory that this is a big factor in developing and maintaining a healthy immune system. It may even be a factor in the development of allergies/intolerances. I haven't seen any of the research into this, but this guy is pretty knowledgeable on most medical matters and he's bought into the idea. One of the early indications about Covid19's lethality was that people's own immune systems were going into overdrive, exacerbating the inflammation - which if it's in your lungs can be bad news.

Of course, anything to destroy Covid19 on surfaces is a good thing to prevent infection. However, you don't need a super-effective bactericide to do this. Soap and water is as effective as anything else because surfactants destroy the virus' spike proteins.

[661-Pete]

......will get rid of 99.9% of bacteria

Dammit! I've just got another batch of sourdough on the go - which, as all 'breaddies' will know, depends on a combi of wild yeasts and lactobacilli (a type of 'good' bacteria) for successful rising. Better hide the Carex or Dettol or Domestos (or whatever) before it gets to work...

True, some of the biggest killers in human history have been bacteria (think: plague, cholera, TB, leprosy, etc. etc.), but I believe that beneficial bacteria species outnumber those that are harmful. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Nevertheless, still a good idea to keep washing your hands and other parts of your body. Whether sanitiser gel is more effective than good old soap and water, well: the jury's still out on that. The alcohol in gels does seem to have some effect on COVID.

And I still want to keep on making sourdough. If we're going to be back to shortages and panic-buying, that may be all we've got left to eat!

[Ellieb]

I get horizon's point. Destroying all bacteria in your environment isn't necessarily a good thing. I've got a GP buddy who's quite vociferous about the benefits of being exposed to general bugs in your environment - there's a theory that this is a big factor in developing and maintaining a healthy immune system. It may even be a factor in the development of allergies/intolerances. I haven't seen any of the research into this, but this guy is pretty knowledgeable on most medical matters and he's bought into the idea. One of the early indications about Covid19's lethality was that people's own immune systems were going into overdrive, exacerbating the inflammation - which if it's in your lungs can be bad news.

Of course, anything to destroy Covid19 on surfaces is a good thing to prevent infection. However, you don't need a super-effective bactericide to do this. Soap and water is as effective as anything else because surfactants destroy the virus' spike proteins.

But detergent and water also kill the good bacteria. In the current situation protecting yourself against covid necessarily means killing beneficial bugs as well. What horizon fails to realise is that by objecting to this sort of product he is effectively also objecting to the advertising of soap.

[pwa]

I do use Carex liberally at work, because it is about all I can do to protect myself against Covid on surfaces, but I admit that I have no idea how effective a 70% alcohol product is against a virus which, after all, is not bacteria. I couldn't care less about bacteria.

I probably use more anti-bac hand gel in one shift now than I did in my whole life upto Covid.

70% alcohol destroys the virus by drying out the lipid coating surrounding it.

Good to know. It certainly dries my hands out.

Soap and water do the job at home but when at work, not near a sink, hand sanitizer is the next best thing. Under more normal circumstances I am all in favour of regular exposure to a bit of dirt to maintain a healthy immune system.

[DevonDamo]

But detergent and water also kill the good bacteria. In the current situation protecting yourself against covid necessarily means killing beneficial bugs as well. What horizon fails to realise is that by objecting to this sort of product he is effectively also objecting to the advertising of soap.

According to Google, soap doesn't kill bacteria - it removes it by breaking up the greasy layer on your skin (where the bacteria congregate) so it can be washed away. Bactericides, as their name implies, do. However, soap does prevent Covid19 from infecting you because it knocks off its spike protein which the virus uses to trick its way into your system.

I agree that in a time of Covid, hygiene practices have to change, but from what I've read, there is no need for a bactericide so long as you can get to a sink. (I still have a small bottle of bactericide - alcohol - for when I touch a 'suspect' surface whilst out and about.) But if you do catch Covid19, it may be the case that a lifetime exposed to bugs might work in your favour - which I think was the point horizon was making.

[Ellieb]

But if you do catch Covid19, it may be the case that a lifetime exposed to bugs might work in your favour - which I think was the point horizon was making.

Back in the day when personal hygiene was rudimentary, being exposed to bugs didn’t prevent people from dying in their millions from the various viral and bacterial diseases that have afflicted humanity throughout the ages. Whilst there are many innocent good bugs being killed by modern cleaning/sanitising products, that is the price you have to pay to get the bad guys. & at the moment there is one particular bad guy we could all do with seeing less of. There is a cost/benefit calculation to ge made here. Which is the point I’m making.