Why was hand sanitizer recommended during covid

1. Why hand hygiene became central: breaking transmission chains

Public health guidance made hand hygiene a core preventive step because cleaning hands reduces the number of viable pathogens that transiently contaminate hands, lowering the chance of transferring virus to the face or surfaces — a standard infection‑control principle applied to COVID‑19 ^{[2] [1]}. Soap and water mechanically remove dirt and pathogens; when that isn’t feasible, alcohol‑based sanitizers were promoted as the next best option ^{[1] [5]}.

2. The science behind “60–70% alcohol” as the benchmark

Laboratory data show that 60% ethanol and 70% isopropanol inactivate viruses that are genetically related to SARS‑CoV‑2 and have similar physical properties, which is why agencies set minimum alcohol thresholds for effectiveness ^{[5] [1]}. Consumer guidance echoed this: the CDC and other experts advised using sanitizers with at least 60% alcohol, with some clinicians recommending closer to 70% ethyl alcohol for optimal effect ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Why alcohol-based sanitizers were preferred over some alternatives

Alcohol remains the “gold standard” for rapidly inactivating a broad range of enveloped viruses like coronaviruses; alcohol‑free options such as benzalkonium chloride (BKC) have some laboratory support but were not uniformly adopted into CDC guidance during the pandemic, limiting their official role ^{[7] [8]}. Fast Company reported that BKC showed promise but regulatory stances by the CDC and FDA effectively constrained widespread substitution away from alcohol‑based products ^{[8] [7]}.

4. Practical reasons: portability, speed, and use outside healthcare settings

Hand sanitizers are portable, act quickly, and are easy to use in public or in transit, which made them a practical tool for the general population when soap and water weren’t immediately available — helping maintain frequent hand hygiene throughout daily activities ^{[9] [7]}. In healthcare settings, CDC guidance emphasized alcohol‑based sanitizers as the preferred form of hand hygiene because of accessibility and effectiveness against relevant pathogens ^[2].

5. Safety, quality and unintended harms raised by regulators

Regulators and health systems warned that only properly formulated products should be used: the FDA issued alerts about hand sanitizers contaminated with methanol and recommended using alcohol‑based sanitizers with at least 60% ethanol ^[4]. Public health authors and pharmacy groups also stressed quality control, labeling, and compounding standards during shortages to avoid toxic or ineffective products ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Tradeoffs: skin irritation, dermatitis, and formulation choices

Frequent hand hygiene increased rates of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis; dermatology groups observed that alcohol‑based sanitizers with added moisturizers tend to be less irritating than repeated soap use for some people, and experts recommended formulations that balance efficacy with skin tolerability ^[10]. Reviews and commentaries urged attention to adverse effects and the need for standards to prevent harm from substandard products ^{[11] [12]}.

7. Where viewpoints diverged and limitations of the record

Laboratory studies supported alcohol and some non‑alcohol agents (e.g., BKC) against SARS‑CoV‑2, but public‑health bodies did not uniformly endorse non‑alcohol sanitizers, creating tension between emerging lab data and regulatory recommendations ^{[8] [7]}. Available sources do not mention detailed randomized trials comparing handwashing versus sanitizer specifically for real‑world COVID‑19 prevention; agencies therefore relied on a combination of laboratory inactivation data and longstanding infection‑control practice ^{[5] [1]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Hand sanitizer was recommended because properly formulated alcohol‑based products reliably inactivate coronaviruses in labs, are practical where soap and water aren’t available, and carry well‑documented guidance on minimum alcohol levels (at least 60% ethanol or ~70% isopropanol) — but users needed to avoid contaminated or substandard products and be mindful of skin effects ^{[1] [5] [4]}.