The winter sneeze – hand, tissue or Dracula style? (Gesundheit!)

When I was a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, wiping your nose on your clothes wasa bit of a boy thing – and a bit of a marker of class, too.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


When I was a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, wiping your nose on your clothes was a marker of social class. Lots of us girls were very keen on our hankies, though. I used to embroider initials on them and crochet lace around their edges.

Now it's hankies that should make people go ewww! and the upper sleeve should be respectable for catching coughs and sneezes.

Before they became controversial as germ-catchers, the European handkerchief had an interesting history- and rather a long association with class. Erasmus apparently said the cap or the sleeve "might be alright for pastry-cooks," but hands were a bit better and handkerchiefs were what social betters should use. Marie Antoinette has been credited with insisting - ultimately supported by royal edict - that hankies be square. Perhaps that one's an apocryphal tale. Wikipedia says the material hankies are made of still "can be symbolic of the socio-economic class of the user."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Back in the Spanish flu era early last century, covering your mouth with a handkerchief when you coughed or sneezed was recommended in the US. And face masks made of gauzewere used in sickrooms and hospitals.

Now, according to the CDC, tissues are the first line - to be tossed in the waste afterwards, with the upper sleeve or crook of the elbow as back-up if you don't have a tissue handy. In 2009, this picked up the nickname, "the Dracula Sneeze," after the full Dracula pose.

The CDC also recommends washing your hands with soap and warm water for 20 seconds often, or using an alcohol-based hand rub.

Has all this taken off? Not so much. An observational study in New Zealand during a flu epidemic found that less than 4% of people used a hanky or tissue and less than 2% used their elbow or arm to cover their coughing and sneezing. They were more likely to cover up when they were close to other people.

Some people don't shake hands, kiss others or share glasses when they've got a cold, but when the flu's going around, you don't see all that big a change in social life.

There certainly seem to be some people using hand-sanitizers in some countries, but that doesn't seem to be all that common either. Not many use those dispensers provided in institutions.

That people don't really do these things is one of the barriers to them working, but not the only one. We can spray those droplets up to 6 feet away, and they last on surfaces for 2 to 8 hours. The virus gets into our respiratory system either directly by droplets reaching our eyes, nose or mouth, or from our hands when we touch our faces. There are just so many ways for the flu virus to spread.

Logically, if there's no one around, since it's hard to keep our hands away from our faces, sneezing or coughing directly into your hands would be worse than not covering up - hence the recent advice.

A systematic review by Tom Jefferson and colleagues with an updated search in 2010 found the evidence about what works and doesn't work has grown a little. But given how important this topic is, it's rather shocking we don't have more rigorous trials testing all these theories.

So what did Jefferson conclude? The cough/sneeze hygiene and frequent hand-washing interventions seem to have the most effect in children - likely because their hygiene is the worst and their close social contact is greater than anyone else's. Frequent hand-washing or hand sanitizer use do work, but antiseptics aren't necessarily better. What "often"or "frequent" means isn't clear, though.

Ordinary surgical masks can help - full-on gas masks aren't necessarily better, although eye goggles might help those caring for someone with a dangerous respiratory infection.

Doing more things to reduce transmission rather than fewer is better. Keeping your distance from people who are infected does seem worthwhile, although the studies haven't been very good.

No word specifically on the hand vs tissues vs elbow question. I still find myself "doing the Dracula" more and more, though. Kinda feels like being back in the old neighborhood.

~~~~

There's more about protecting yourself from respiratory viruses in this fact sheet.

You can see the full text of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Jefferson and colleagues here - and I've written an introduction to meta-analysis here.

Want to know more about sneezing? Here's a great post by SciCurious.

The Statistically Funny cartoon is my original (Creative Commons, non-commercial, share-alike license).

The public health poster is from around 1925, in Wikimedia Commons.

* The thoughts Hilda Bastian expresses here at Absolutely Maybe are personal, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hilda Bastian was a health consumer advocate in Australia in the '80s and '90s. Controversies riddled with ideology and vested interests drove her to science. Epidemiology and effectiveness research have kept her hooked ever since.

More by Hilda Bastian

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe