This?> They have been saying for decades to stop using antibacterial soap because it produces resistant, super bacteria.
Here is my hypothetical, Northern Italy is put under quarantine and everyone cooperates. So 14 days go by snd then what? Is it assumed that the virus is gone, what has changed? What is the next step?
Re: Soap, yes and no. Some agents found in soap can produce resistant bacteria. Tricolsan was very common in antibacterial soaps and was observed to not only breed resistant bacteria, but cause cross-resistance with other antibiotics- such Floroquinolone antibiotics (Cirprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, Moxifloxacin, etc). This is pretty significant given these are commonly used and are fairly powerful antibiotics. Triclosan was banned from soaps in 2016 (and other products, but still exists in others).
The currently approved agents in soaps and hand sanitizers have been chosen due to their low risk of promoting bacterial resistance (ie BZK). So presumably there shouldn’t be a huge risk in using antibacterial soap now- though technically the jury, in this case the FDA, is still out. But I think it’s fair to say the risk is pretty low. As I mentioned depending on the mechanism of action of an antiseptic, the ease in which bacteria can develop resistance is quite variable.
Re: Quarantine- it’s a great question. In some sense I feel like people are treating the situation like a short term problem, like a hurricane or blizzard. In reality this is going to be a long term problem. From a practical standpoint, I think it makes more sense only for those infected or suspected to be to self-quarantine- life has to go on. High risk individuals (elderly, sick, immunocompromised) should probably consider limiting contact. Otherwise, I’m not sure shutting everything down is the answer- unless want to wait around locked in our homes for a year or more until vaccines are available.
As I said in another thread, uncontrolled community spread is inevitable. Trying to contain the virus is like trying to contain the seasonal flu. It simply isn’t feasible.
Like it or not we’re in this for the long haul. The good news you have pretty low risk of death or severe symptoms unless you’re immunocompromised or elderly, especially with co-occurring major health problems. In a study of 72,000 cases published in JAMA, the average age of death was 69. Children thankfully seem to be minimally affected. This isn’t to minimize the dangers of COVID-19, rather we need to keep things in perspective. We should be focusing our attention on protecting the most vulnerable. It would be a poor use of resources to not prioritize those most at risk of severe complications and death. I’d rather get sick as a young and healthy man with a statistically favorable prognosis instead of my 95 YO grandfather in declining health- or anyone else in a high risk pool.
The primary goal should no longer be to contain the virus across the country- that ship has sailed (probably before even our first case was identified) and was unrealistic to begin with- or at least completely and absurdly impractical. Instead, the primary goal should presumably be to prevent as many deaths and limit cases that would require advanced medical care.
