"Sanitize & more rules for meeting baby" Aren't some of these a little extreme?

[LadyBarbossa]

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...8165&GT1=32023

I'll admit that there are some good pointers in that article, particularly the ones about not giving your labor and sick newborn horror stories to new parents, etc, however, it's the first two points that kind of have me going

Don't Forget to Sanitize
Maybe you just washed up before entering the room. Maybe you're a believer in the immune-boosting power of everyday germs. You know what? It doesn't matter.
Instead: Hightail it to the nearest sink or sanitizer pump and make the new parents comfortable that you're clean as a whistle before cuddling their new addition.

I know that 16 years ago when my first nephew was born, the hospital had a rule that anyone wanting to hold him had to scrub and wear a special gown over their clothes, at least for the first day or so. I guess it's the sanitizer comment in this one that I find odd; isn't hand sanitizer toxic when ingested? What if residue from it where to somehow get on the baby's hands, which then enter its mouth?

Don't Bring Your Toddler
Does your two-year-old just LOVE babies? Yep, most of them do. But remember that infants are delicate, and toddlers can be carriers for a ton of infections -- particularly if they're attending day care or preschool.
Instead: Plan for newborn encounters and play it safe by teaching your tot a hands-off approach. You don't want to be responsible for baby's first cold (or mommy's first tantrum).

A ton of infections? So now two-year olds are viewed as little walking viruses? Is an infant really in that much danger of getting sick from a toddler? And as far as being delicate, I see no problem with bringing a toddler to see a new baby, so long as said toddler's parents keep an eye on it and make sure it doesn't try to handle the little one.

I can't speak with much experience, since I'm not a parent, but the article just struck me as fueling the paranoia about germs and such. Am I just being naive, or does it seem a little over-the-top?

[Rapscallion]

It depends on how you see it. I assume some of the claims can be backed up statistically, in which case the article fails to say how many newborns have actually suffered significantly as a result of a germ-infested visitor. If they can't then it's a scare piece.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

I'll admit that there are some good pointers in that article, particularly the ones about not giving your labor and sick newborn horror stories to new parents, <snip>
I can't speak with much experience, since I'm not a parent, but the article just struck me as fueling the paranoia about germs and such. Am I just being naive, or does it seem a little over-the-top?

I don't tell my labor "horror story" if asked I just explain that I don't tell it as it is NOT typical and a result of badly trained hospital personnel. But the only precaution I took when holding my sister-in-laws children was I made sure I hadn't been smoking in the clothes I was wearing(smoke particles sometimes stick to clothing), I refused to hold them or get closer than 5 feet if I had-it also depends on if the mother is breastfeeding-if she is the child gets antibodies from the mother until it's own immune system "kicks in", so germs are not as much of a concern, I'd be more concerned about the mother getting sick personally. See this article if you want statistics. I had a doctor actually tell me "A baby comes out of the most bacteria filled area on the body, unless you were to boil an infant it's not sterile"

[Amethyst Hunter]

Hand sanitizer is overrated. As long as you wash your hands well with regular soap and water, you're probably okay. Sanitizer is meant for REALLY icky situations, and using it too much is why we have superbugs that are resistant to medications (including antibiotics, which are also overprescribed and misused).

[Boozy]

Hand sanitizer is far better for psychological comfort than anything. I keep some at the till in my store. So when an icky customer hands me a curiously damp bill pulled from god-knows-where, I can do something to settle my germ freak-out after they leave.

I purposely ignore reports that hand sanitizer does nothing. I have to believe, for my own piece of mind. We have no sink in the store.

[AdminAssistant]

I had a doctor actually tell me "A baby comes out of the most bacteria filled area on the body, unless you were to boil an infant it's not sterile"

A few hours after Monster was born, the pediatrician came to give him his first check-up (and figure out when they were doing the circumcision). Pediatrician takes the baby and flops him around, holds him upside down, all sorts of things. Mom (despite her then nearly 30 years of parenting) was about to have a cow. My sister was too out of it to really care. Anyway, the doctor looked at the shocked grandparents and said, "He's not made of glass, y'know"

Babies are a lot stronger than we give them credit for, methinks.

[DrT]

Babies and toddlers are extremely strong. Pick up a walking baby under the armpits, he'll lift both of his legs straight without effort.
Now try it yourself....
My second son broke his clavicle getting outta mommy. Healed in a few days. Anything but head trauma is nothing to a baby.

Now germs are another matter. Antibodies from mom are not enough. Some viruses can incubate a while before being bothered by antibodies, and hurt the baby for life. So it's not ok to be yuky when holding a baby, especially right after birth. Try not to caught to their face either. That said, unless you have a badass virus like the flu or a cold, you're unlikely to transmit anything unless you exchanche fuild with the baby.

Hand sanitizer: the label will tell you, it's 70% alchohol in gellified water.
We use it to sanitize biological hoods. It works. Simply put: nothing can live in 70% ethanol. Nothing.
It's not a matter of developing a resistance like with an antibiotic. An antibiotic uses the machinery of life to kill you. 70% ethanol doesn't allow life. period.
careful now: 100% ethanol DOES.
Not 70%.

That said, it doesn clean, it sanitizes. That means that the dirt on you hands is now clean. It's still there though. But the germs are dead (providing you used enough). Most viruses will go away as well (they're not alive, so I can't say they'll be dead now can I).

Soap and water will not sanitize. They'll take away most of the crap on your skin, not deep though.
The idea is that the crap on your hands has more affinity for the soap that yoru skin. Doesn't mean it'll kill it.
Soap that surgeons use is harsh as hell, and they scrup forever to get deep and get rif of the old skin (which hides stuff). THEN they put sterile gloves on.

Hence to have clean hands, soap will do.
To go cleaner, soap, then sanitize, then soap (to remove the gel)

Hand sanitizer does the job in the jiffy, just remember that the dirt stays. Tis just clean now

[Pedersen]

Simply put: nothing can live in 70% ethanol. Nothing.

I have to take issue with this. Extremophiles show that life can survive in conditions that we would think are impossible for life to exist. For instance, some instances have been found where life survives in acids, alkalis, and salt.

As such, I very much hesitate to agree with the statement that nothing can survive. Every so often, life finds a way.

[Dreamstalker]

I know that 16 years ago when my first nephew was born, the hospital had a rule that anyone wanting to hold him had to scrub and wear a special gown over their clothes

Mom says that the hospital where I was born had that rule as well plus some, but I was a preemie back when they had first started to give much better odds so the precautions were understandable.

I can see being clean, but I would think that sanitizer residue on your hands would do more harm than good to a newborn (wasn't there a case a while ago where a baby got drunk from either using hand sanitizer or ingesting it?).