Look closer at sanitiser regulation

SOUTH Africa is steadily entering the next phase of its management of the Covid-19 pandemic where, in the absence of a recognised vaccine to inoculate the population, the only practical intervention is non-pharmacological.

The only way we have of minimising transmission is to keep our distance from one another, wear masks and scrupulously wash our hands regularly and thoroughly.

It’s an incredibly simple yet scientifically proven solution.

The government has also issued a directive for retailers, in particular, to spray customers’ hands with sanitisers as they enter and leave their premises. It’s a very welcome service – on the face of it – because it introduces another layer of public hygiene, theoretically further diminishing the risk of infection. But all of this depends on what is being sprayed.

The directive only calls for an alcohol content of 70% in the hand sanitiser solutions.

Anecdotally, it appears that shopkeepers and managers of premises which the public can access have resorted to a mix of solutions; some conventionally sourced from reputable stockists, others home-made in a bid to contain unforeseen costs.

The problem is that these non-standard solutions could be anything from rubbing alcohol on the one extreme to solutions that are so watered down that they are rendered nothing more than panaceas. Neither is helpful.

The watered-down solutions are a cynical lip service to critical regulations, while the full-strength alcohol sanitisers on the other hand could do more harm than good, actually causing allergic reactions and potentially even further harm.

Much has been said about the illogicality and disproportionate nature of some of the lockdown regulations, but in this case the loophole on compliance could result in publicly dispensed sanitisers being refused and/or distrusted.

Given where we are, this is one regulation that actually needs to be properly implemented.