FHI is considering changing the mouthwash advice – VG

It was Aftenposten who first mentioned the case.

The background to the European Infection Protection Agency (ECDC) report is stronger evidence that people with mild or symptom-free symptoms also contribute to the spread of infection.

Also, mouthwash is linked to a lower risk of infection during the 2003 SARS epidemic.

The report is addressed to the health authorities of the EU and EEA countries.

The ECDC believes that use may be necessary in the following situations:

• When you stay in crowded places like stores or shopping malls.
• By public transport
• In workplaces or occupations that require one to be physically close to other people, such as the police

At the same time, it is emphasized that the use of mouth rinses cannot replace existing infection control measures. It is also unclear how much effect non-medical mouthwashes have.

VG first wrote that this was an ECDC recommendation, but it is a technical report on the advantages and disadvantages of using mouthwash.

read also

Experts: we know this about using mouthwash

You must prioritize health professionals.

The ECDC is also clear that any recommendation should be compared with each country’s access to medical mouthwash. Health professionals have first priority.

In low-stock countries, non-medical homemade mouthwashes are recommended.

The infection control agency also notes that mouthwash itself can increase the risk of infection.

This is because the face is often reached more frequently, and because the possible fall infection can be transmitted when it is removed.

Therefore, ECDC believes that a possible recommendation requires appropriate use information campaigns.

FHI: continually evaluating the council

Until now, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has not considered it appropriate for such a recommendation in Norway.

The exception applies to the health care system.

Now, the Director of the Department, Line Vold at FHI, tells VG that they are doing a new evaluation regarding the use of mouthwash.

– We constantly review our tips to make sure they are based on an updated knowledge base at all times, she says.

At the same time, the violence indicates that there is uncertainty about the great usefulness of mouthwash to limit infection outside the health service.

– There is no good evidence to say that it actually protects against covid-19 outside of the health service. It has a well-documented effect on the health service, but here it is spoken from the outside, which must be compared to access to equipment and the possible negative consequences, he says.

May provide false security

When asked what FHI thinks about the use of non-medical mouthwashes, the department director responds:

– In this case, you will have a slightly different target group. Medical mouthwashes have gone through quality control and must have documented efficacy. Other types are created that provide a lower degree of protection, and there are varying degrees of effectiveness, she says.

– What negative consequences do you think speak against a recommendation?

– We strive for councils to have the best possible knowledge base. Then there are some who claim that false security can be obtained if not used correctly, and that it may affect compliance with other documented effective advice.

– In the case of a recommendation, do you fear that people may perceive it as a sign that, for example, it is not necessary to keep your distance?

– I think we should wait to respond until the evaluation arrives, says Vold.

She cannot respond when FHI does the re-evaluation.

Correction: In an earlier edition of this case, VG wrote that ECDC calls on member state authorities to recommend the public use of mouthwash. The correct thing is that they have issued a report aimed at the EU and EEA countries, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the public use of mouthwash. The case was resolved 16.04 at. 00:00.