It seems plausible to me that the copper tape approach many LWers have adopted is counter-productive in at least some cases. The logic for this is:
1. In the pictures I’ve seen, and with my own applications of copper tape, to the surfaces we seem to touch most often (e.g. doorknobs, light switches) applications of it have created a number of small creases, bumps, ridges, and/or folds.
2. Copper does not seem to have nearly as strong an effect on surfaces as does wiping them with disinfectant.
3. Wiping them with disinfectant seems likely to be a lot less effective on surfaces that aren’t smooth (bumps, ridges, etc.) due to the difficulty in wiping all parts of the surface.
I think for high-touch surfaces in widely-shared environments (e.g. offices), probably disinfecting every few hours or more often is a good idea, and better than the passive benefits of copper. At home I think copper is likely to win out, unless your house is really on the ball about disinfecting things.
I’ve also considered this. I think there is some chance of this being the case, and I think we should take it seriously. I’ve been considering sanding down all of the surfaces we covered with copper tape with sandpaper, to make sure they are actually smooth.
I do disagree with this though:
3. Wiping them with disinfectant seems likely to be a lot less effective on surfaces that aren’t smooth (bumps, ridges, etc.) due to the difficulty in wiping all parts of the surface.
My current sense is that wiping them down with disinfectant works totally fine, since at least the disinfectant we use is pretty wet and seems to get into creases and bumps just fine.
It seems plausible to me that the copper tape approach many LWers have adopted is counter-productive in at least some cases. The logic for this is:
1. In the pictures I’ve seen, and with my own applications of copper tape, to the surfaces we seem to touch most often (e.g. doorknobs, light switches) applications of it have created a number of small creases, bumps, ridges, and/or folds.
2. Copper does not seem to have nearly as strong an effect on surfaces as does wiping them with disinfectant.
3. Wiping them with disinfectant seems likely to be a lot less effective on surfaces that aren’t smooth (bumps, ridges, etc.) due to the difficulty in wiping all parts of the surface.
Thoughts?
I think the problem with this is the burden of wiping down surfaces often enough to be effective. Copper appears to take a few hours to effectively render the virus undetectable (according to https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/people-shed-high-levels-of-coronavirus-study-finds-but-most-are-likely-not-infectious-after-recovery-begins/, just out today.) So to get the same effect from wipes, I would presumably need to fully wipe down all those surfaces every few hours at least, and I would need to not run out of wipes.
I think for high-touch surfaces in widely-shared environments (e.g. offices), probably disinfecting every few hours or more often is a good idea, and better than the passive benefits of copper. At home I think copper is likely to win out, unless your house is really on the ball about disinfecting things.
I’ve also considered this. I think there is some chance of this being the case, and I think we should take it seriously. I’ve been considering sanding down all of the surfaces we covered with copper tape with sandpaper, to make sure they are actually smooth.
I do disagree with this though:
My current sense is that wiping them down with disinfectant works totally fine, since at least the disinfectant we use is pretty wet and seems to get into creases and bumps just fine.
A downside of using copper may be that exposing it to disinfectants could lead to a decrease in its efficacy. Ethanol is listed specifically.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3067274/#r1
The claimed exception to this is “a 1% nonionic detergent solution”.