So would you say that government messages like this that suggest washing with soap actually kills viruses are inaccurate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsbO-YmE4qY

"They should bin tissues as soon as possible, because germs can live for several hours, and wash their hands as soon as possible, to kill any bugs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7804709.stm

I suppose, but the process described it an effective way of ridding your hands of any virus. I think that the PSA would have been significantly less effective for the lay person if it started to get into the science of what happens when you wash your hands.

Intriguing. The Mayo Clinic link says:

"Antibacterial soaps have become increasingly popular in recent years. However, these soaps are no more effective at killing germs than is regular soap."

This does imply that regular soaps are somewhat effective at killing germs. Or possibly (in a very bad wording!) that neither soaps nor antibacterial soaps are at all effective in actually killing them.

Handwashing is more interesting than I thought. :)

Nah. Handwashing is effective. It is just that antibacterial soaps are not MORE effective than regular soap. They remove the same amount of bacteria. Check out the article in the link below. They have done scientific studies to prove this. The antibacterial agent in commercial soaps may in fact lead to antibacterial resistance. Regular soap works just fine.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5990

I didn't say "effective" I said "effective at killing", quoting the Mayo site.

I already read all the links you gave, no need to reference it again.

The question is whether all the people like Mayo and the UK govt that mention something about soap *killing* viruses are just being sloppy, or is there anything to it at all.

So far it looks like they're being sloppy. But when you find generally credible sources saying different things, just citing one doesn't clinch it 100%.

OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. However, basically while soap and water may not kill the bacteria or the viruses, it more effectively removes them. It works better than pretty much anything else in getting it off of you, even though alcohol based disinfectant can be virucidal and antibacterial. I have included two citations and abstracts below.

Virucidal activity of a new hand disinfectant with reduced ethanol content: comparison with other alcohol-based formulations.
Kramer A. Galabov AS. Sattar SA. Dohner L. Pivert A. Payan C. Wolff MH. Yilmaz A. Steinmann J.
Journal of Hospital Infection. 62(1):98-106, 2006 Jan.
Article
UI: 16307826

AB A new formula with reduced ethanol content (55%) in combination with 10% propan-1-ol, 5.9% propan-1.2-diol, 5.7% butan-1.3-diol and 0.7% phosphoric acid exhibited a broad spectrum of virucidal activity. In quantitative suspension tests, with and without protein load, this formulation reduced the infectivity titre of seven enveloped (influenza A and B, herpes simplex 1 and 2, bovine corona, respiratory syncytial, vaccinia, hepatitis B, bovine viral diarrhoea) and four non-enveloped (hepatitis A, polio, rota, feline calici) viruses >10(3)-fold within 30s. In comparative testing, only 95% ethanol showed similar levels of activity. In fingerpad tests, the formulation produced a log10 reduction factor of the titre of poliovirus type 1 (Sabin) of 3.04 in 30s compared with 1.32 by 60% propan-2-ol. Testing against feline calicivirus produced a log10 reduction factor of 2.38 by the test formulation; in contrast, the log10 reduction factors with 70% ethanol and 70% propan-1-ol were 0.68 and 0.70, respectively.

Efficacy of soap and water and alcohol-based hand-rub preparations against live H1N1 influenza virus on the hands of human volunteers.
Grayson ML. Melvani S. Druce J. Barr IG. Ballard SA. Johnson PD. Mastorakos T. Birch C.
Clinical Infectious Diseases. 48(3):285-91, 2009 Feb 1.
Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
UI: 19115974

AB BACKGROUND: Although pandemic and avian influenza are known to be transmitted via human hands, there are minimal data regarding the effectiveness of routine hand hygiene (HH) protocols against pandemic and avian influenza. METHODS: Twenty vaccinated, antibody-positive health care workers had their hands contaminated with 1 mL of 10(7) tissue culture infectious dose (TCID)(50)/0.1 mL live human influenza A virus (H1N1; A/New Caledonia/20/99) before undertaking 1 of 5 HH protocols (no HH control, soap and water hand washing SW, or use of 1 of 3 alcohol-based hand rubs ethanol gel, 70% ethanol plus 0.5% chlorhexidine solution, or 70% isopropanol plus 0.5% chlorhexidine solution). H1N1 concentrations were assessed before and after each intervention by viral culture and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The natural viability of H1N1 on hands for >60 min without HH was also assessed. RESULTS: There was an immediate reduction in culture-detectable and PCR-detectable H1N1 after brief cutaneous air drying--14 of 20 health care workers had H1N1 detected by means of culture (mean reduction, 10(3-4) TCID(50)/0.1 mL), whereas 6 of 20 had no viable H1N1 recovered; all 20 health care workers had similar changes in PCR test results. Marked antiviral efficacy was noted for all 4 HH protocols, on the basis of culture results (14 of 14 had no culturable H1N1; (P< .002) and PCR results (P< .001; cycle threshold value range, 33.3-39.4), with SW statistically superior (P< .001) to all 3 alcohol-based hand rubs, although the actual difference was only 1-100 virus copies/microL. There was minimal reduction in H1N1 after 60 min without HH. CONCLUSIONS: HH with SW or alcohol-based hand rub is highly effective in reducing influenza A virus on human hands, although SW is the most effective intervention. Appropriate HH may be an important public health initiative to reduce pandemic and avian influenza transmission.

Thanks for these, good highly relevant info from great sources.