I meant to post this on here.
When I was dealing with immunosuppression from infectious mono several years ago, I "developed" some methods for preventing viral infections that might be applicable to the prevention of influenza infections. As I've said, it's my opinion that many, if not most, influenza infections are a result of self-inoculation, in which a person touches a surface that contains influenza virions/virus particles and then touches, either indirectly or directly, a mucosal surface on his or her face, such as on the eyes (touching the eyes or eyelids can allow the virions to be transferred to the conjunctival mucosal surfaces, around the eyes) or mouth or nose. The best way I've found to avoid this is to get in the habit of never touching one's face in public. I never touch my face in public, and I've basically gotten so I do touch my face at home, just in passing or in thought, etc., but do not really touch mucosal surfaces, even at home. That's almost not conscious on my part, but it's the type of thing that provides a "redundancy" in the prevention of self-inoculation. But, to be aggressive in the prevention of viral infections, one has to abandon the social pressure to do things in a reasonable way. I'm not saying I use these extreme sorts of approaches anymore, but the fact remains that the "normal" or "average" person, either at a hospital or elsewhere, is not effective at preventing the transmission of infections. If I had ever gotten into the business of trying to adhere to "normal" standards or habits, I would never have learned anything or gotten anything done, basically. In any case, the idea is just to think about ways to recognize that any surface that's entering the house from a public area could contain live viruses. I saw some expert on tv who was saying that influenza can't live for more than 5-10 minutes, or something, on a person's hand but, as is well-known, can live for 48-72 hours on a smooth surface. I can't verify that that's accurate, about the hands, though, because the person was making other statements that were inaccurate. But what constitutes a smooth surface? I would consider anything, such as mail, food packaging, packages that have been delivered, items from a drugstore, etc., to be potentially infectious. There isn't really any downside to treating them as such. It could get kind of excessive to open the food package, disinfect one's hands, and then unload the food, put the package in the cupboard or refrigerator, and then disinfect one's hands again, before eating the food, but I'm just saying that one shouldn't, in my opinion, guide one's behavior and "decisions," in that area, on some fear of being "obsessive" or of going against the sloppy behaviors of the masses. Some viruses can survive freezing and rethawing and can survive winters in barns and remain infectious, and I don't know what length of time influenza may be able to survive in a refrigerator or freezer. I wouldn't trust something an expert says on tv, however, because some people base their statements, inappropriately, on one set of flawed experiments or on 50-year-old research or medical folk wisdom and beliefs or something, etc. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to consider the use of large amounts of the alcohol-containing hand sanitizer gel when returning from a public place or touching items that have definitely been in public areas, in the presence of "other humans," recently. It's basically necessary to cover the entire surface of the hands with alcohol, to avoid rhinovirus or, for example, rotavirus infections, and I don't know if it's true that influenza can't survive on the hands for more than 5-10 minutes. I would assume it's not true, personally. When one uses a disinfectant like that, one does so with the knowledge that there is not likely to be a danger of infection in most instances, on most days. The point is to develop a habit and effective procedure, in the event that one's hands are carrying viruses.
I once saw that Howie Mandell say that he had been told, by a doctor, that the frequent use of hand sanitizer would cause "all the antibodies" to disappear from his hands or some nonsense like that. It's not true and is something that was meant to "scare him straight," to scare him into being "not obsessive." One isn't going to fall down a "slippery slope" of obsessiveness or go "kway-thee" by going outside the boundaries of normal behavior in specific instances or contexts. The pressure on people to behave in the ways everyone else behaves and to be desperately afraid of being obsessive about something is, in my opinion, one of the most destructive forces that exists. If one embraces that approach, there is the risk that everything novel and original and powerful will be stripped away from oneself, over the long term. The normal practices of the masses and drive toward normalization create a stripped-down, beaten-down, powerless state of being and of ignorance, essentially, in many areas. Anyway, I'm exaggerating a little, but it's true in a lot of ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment