[ad_1]
Professor Göran K Hansson from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in SVT’s Aktuellt (November 9, 2020) that the Public Health Agency displays a bunker mentality that does not listen to science and the world health organization WHO . There are around 70 studies showing that wearing a mouth guard should be a routine matter. Contrary to what the Public Health Agency claims, those who wear mouth guards better follow other rules.
Since the corona outbreak, the Swedish Public Health Agency has had almost unlimited space on radio and television to talk about the measures needed to reduce the spread of the infection. Despite this, after eight months, the public has not received information on what “mouth guards” should be used and how they should be handled. The lack of accurate information has led many to be skeptical of this protection.
Later in this article, there is help in choosing the right respiratory protection so you don’t get infected or the right mouth protection so you don’t infect anyone else. First, let’s take a closer look at what the Swedish Public Health Agency says about oral protection.
The following took place in Sweden Radios Studio One on October 27 when Skåne was affected by new restrictions:
“Isn’t it time to recommend a mouthwash?” asked reporter Karin Tegmark Wisell from the Public Health Agency. “The risks with mouth guards are higher, so we cannot recommend them,” was the reply to those waiting for the bus home from work in Malmö.
“But if mouth guards should not be used when congestion occurs, what is the authority’s recommendation?” the reporter wondered. The answer was: “Wait for the next bus.” One of the passengers was not happy with Karin Tegmark Wisell’s response and said: “If I have to wait for the next bus, I have to be crowded with other travelers.”
What should Being an authority clarification ended up in ambiguities for Scanian travelers. Restrictions lose their value if people’s daily lives are not taken into account.
If it is the Swedish Public Health Agency, in consultation with the regional infection control units, that decides whether “mouth protection” can be recommended, the public will surely want to know what risks the agency bases its decisions on. On the website of the Swedish Public Health Agency you can read the following about oral protection:
“There may be a risk that the use of mouth guards provides a false sense of security that leads to not following other recommendations, such as staying home for symptoms and keeping your distance. There can also be risks when touching the mouth guard and in this way transmitting the infection through the hands, more than if you do not have a mouth guard ”.
Was here an opportunity for Karin Tegmark Wisell to explain on the radio why the Swedish Public Health Agency’s recommendation differs from virtually every other country. The risks declared by the Swedish Public Health Agency have no scientific basis.
On the contrary, studies have shown that those who wear mouth guards are also those who follow other rules such as keeping their distance to two meters. Therefore, the risk of false security is very small.
The risk of spreading the infection through the hands is also small. Learn to keep your fingers away once you have started wearing mouth guards.
On the website of the Public Health Agency It is also said: “If you choose to use a mouth guard, it is important to use the correct type of mouth guard and to use it in the correct way.” Here, however, no guidance is given to the public as to what the authority means by the correct type of mouth guard.
The Swedish Public Health Agency says they monitor the experiences and recommendations of other countries. The authority believes that different countries have landed differently on their recommendations.
I mean that countries outside Sweden – and also the WHO and the EU health authority ECDC – have come to the same opinion. It is the Swedish Public Health Agency the only one that has landed on its own opinion that seems incomprehensible and illogical to a long list of experts inside and outside Sweden.
During a press conference Recently, Søren Brostrøm, the Danish equivalent of state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, had to answer the question of whether there is sufficient evidence that mouth guards are preventive against infections. His response was: “We have enough to recommend mouth protection.”
Until the turn of the year, Denmark will introduce requirements for oral protection in all indoor public settings. Since May 13, 500 people in Denmark have had to report regularly on how they act in the pandemic and what they think about the various restrictions (source The Hopeprojektet). The results show that 70 percent are behind the oral protection requirement.
In an interview on Studio One on November 5, Agoritsa Baka of the ECDC (EU Health Authority) said that “there is compelling research that oral protection reduces the spread of covid-19.” Baka further says that “thousands of lives can be saved if everyone wears mouth guards.”
Statement from the Public Health Agency that the scientific basis is weak in terms of how effective a mouth guard is against the spread of infection no longer holds. Today, no government can claim that the facts are lacking to make decisions about the introduction of mouth guards in places where congestion can occur.
According to a new study from the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 130,000 American lives can be saved in four months if everyone wears a mouth guard. The researchers have calculated this using a computer model.
The CDC has conducted a similar study in which the estimate shows that 100,000 American lives could have been saved if everyone had worn mouth guards. How many lives have we been able to save in Sweden until today if the Swedish Public Health Agency was informed at an early stage about the choice and use of mouth / respiratory protection against covid-19?
October 1st DN published my presentation with the title “Wear face masks also in Sweden”. In the article, I avoided the word “mouth guard”.
The reason is that the mouth guard can be a disposable mask in a cloth layer, which can be bought at the pharmacy for SEK 10, and it can be a mask with three layers of cloth that is recommended by the WHO. Thin medical mouth guards sold by pharmacies can be class I or class II. The highest class is the densest.
The N95 respirator corresponds to the FFP2 masks. Both filter 95 percent of the virus.
Thin mouthguards sold in pharmacies, you can easily put out the flame of a candle with. These should not be used to protect the respiratory tract. Information to the public should not refer only to these thin “mouth guards”.
The masks also include respiratory protection with FFP3 filters that will filter out 99 percent of the virus. There is a respirator (half mask) that can be washed and thus reused. One of these can be seen in the following image.
Model FFP3 face shield, which will filter 99 percent of the virus.
Photo: Private
The authorities and also the media should help inform the public that mouth protection and respiratory protection against covid-19 have two functions:
Mouth guards should only be viewed as a barrier to the spread of covid-19 infection.
2. Respiratory protection will primarily protect the respiratory tract from exposure to COVID-19.
Mouth guards can be a barrier against the spread of infection, but it should be noted that, at best, half the infection remains in disposable mouth guards with a cloth layer. Protection with three layers of fabric should be a better option.
Mouth guards can reduce the spread of droplet infection. Coughing can cause several thousand drops to come out of the throat at a speed of 50 miles per hour, according to Professor Erin Bromage of the University of Massachusetts. When it comes to respiratory protection, almost all droplet infections will remain in the mask.
A study from the University of Tokyo has shown that the N95 worm (equivalent to FFP2) with filters blocks 90 percent of the amount of virus secreted during coughing.
Respiratory protection Filters with FFP3 (half mask) are designed to effectively protect the respiratory tract against viruses. They must comply with the EN 149 standard and bear the CE mark with the following four digits.
It is slightly heavier to breathe in an FFP3 filter half mask compared to a FFP2 filter mask. Protection must be worn by all people belonging to risk groups where distance cannot be kept, especially indoors, for example in grocery stores.
Respiratory protection can be used by anyone who wants to protect the respiratory tract, nose and mouth against COVID-19. You should have a small bottle of rubbing alcohol on hand when you remove your respirator.
