- 最后登录
- 2012-10-24
- 在线时间
- 32 小时
- 寄托币
- 27
- 声望
- 15
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 12
- UID
- 3260584

- 声望
- 15
- 寄托币
- 27
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
The author recommends the hospital to usethe UltraClean (UC) at all hand-washing stations in it, with the evidencesprovided which will be later proved untenable. More information about the effectiveness,bacteria killing ability and some other further data should be provided, and Iwill discuss the logical flaws in it as below.
First, the author hastily draws to theconclusion based on the assumption that a reduction in harmful bacteria canprove the effectiveness of the soap to be provided in the hospital. However, aswe all know, the species of bacteria in hospital varies. Since the percentage ofall kind of bacteria share in the hospital is unknown, the arguer fails toprovide any data to prove that the harmful bacteria is the main danger, it ispossible that some comparatively less harmful bacteria can cause more diseasesand infections in the hospital. Meanwhile, the study offers no prove that thesebacteria can also be killed by the UC soap. Also, even assuming that the soapis of significant and outstanding ability in the bacteria killing, thecontagious reservoir can also be some other bionts, like virus and parasites, whichcan also be dangerous if being contagious in a hospital. Unfortunately, thestudy also provides little evidence that other infection source can also bekilled by the new type of liquid soap.
Also, despite the effectiveness of thestudy soap, the research is also not persuasive enough. For the arguer arguesthat the reported cases and percentages are both decreasing. However it ismaybe that the hospital is making improvements in other ways also to increasethe heath standard of the hospital. For example, more cleaning workers are employed,so that the clean level and standard is becoming much stricter than it used tobe, which will provide no suitable environment for the bacteria and some otherinfective biont to survive. Plus, it can be that trainings and propagandize ofhealth protection is strengthened among the patients in the hospital, which isalso a potential factor contributing to the reduction.
Furthermore, since the comparing is betweenthe hospital and some other hospitals in the group, there is no proving thatthe improvement is actually made. It can be that the number of the patientscaused by hospital infection is initially lower in both cases and percentage inthis hospital than in others, because the hospital majors in some less contagiousdiseases while the compared hospitals are all that majors in highly contagiousdiseases like colds and SARS. Also, it can be that patients are less willing togo to this hospital than to the others, and therefore the bacteria and virusproduced and spread in this hospital is of course at a lower possibility, whichcan also over-evaluate the effectiveness of the soap.
Moreover, despite all the doubts above aboutthe effectiveness of the soap, we now assume that the soap is useful instopping contagious disease to explode in the hospital, though still needfurther evidence to prove it, there is also no evidence showing that it is safeto the apply the soap with no serious side-effect being discovered. For thesoap can kill the bacteria of great power, it is reasonable for the hospital todoubt if it is harmful also to our skin.
Thus, based on all these above, I suggestmore tenable and objective investigations with the comparable match group and morecomprehensive experiments to be done before finaly making the decision. |
|