Antibacterial Touchscreens – Research Now Shows Little or No Danger?

By | February 23, 2022
antibaterial touchscreen

Antibacterial Touchscreen News

Seen on sixteen-nine.net

For sure touchscreens and self-service reduce the number of infections. Always true and still true. And best practice is to regularly clean screens (soap and water is fine). The study was based on bovine (cattle) mucus and simulated sneeze onto surfaces which was allowed to dry right? What about oily finger touchscreen users?

Conclusion — There are a number of variations and while it is nice to see studies, we don’t think all the data is in either.

Meanwhile a new variant of copper achieves unprecedented kill ratio.

In Brief

  • Key statement —  “The risk of contracting coronavirus from touching a surface is quite low,” she told The Daily Beast.
  • New England Journal of Medicine came to different conclusions earlier
  • Article referencing new study
  • ACS Publications link with actual study

Excerpt

It’s been roughly two years since COVID-19 became a daily discussion and the industry started wondering what all this would mean to business and the use of interactive technologies that encouraged touch actions.

In the early days of the novel-coronavirus pandemic, it was widely thought that the pathogen was spread by touching surfaces, prompting no end of discussions and video demos on washing hands and deep cleaning surfaces. All that discussion had people like me wondering if this was going to damage or doom the touchscreen business.

Two years on, with a lot more research and real-world experience under the world’s collective belts, the science tends to point to COVID spread happening almost exclusively through the air – hence the emphasis on masks … and getting vaxxed.

Read full article Seen on sixteen-nine.net

Excerpt from Study

The fomite transmission scenario particularly piqued our interest due to conflicting reports on its importance throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and other disease outbreaks. Several epidemiological case studies indicated that common touch surfaces were a source of fomite transmission that led to outbreak infections of CoVs and other viruses. (10−15) Laboratory research had also indicated that CoVs can persist on surfaces for days (16−20) and even weeks (21−24) in both model and clinical settings. However, large-scale epidemiology studies (25−27) have now led public health experts to conclude that fomite transmission of CoVs, including SARS-CoV-2, is of relatively low risk. (9,28) Such discrepancies have frustrated public health messaging and resulted in misallocation of resources toward the excessive disinfection of surfaces, (29) which comes with its own potential respiratory dangers. (30,31)