"How could it go so wrong with mouth guards?"
The rhetoric about mouth protection has taken a strange turn in Sweden. In other countries, it is a matter of showing solidarity, here citizens have instead received the pedagogical message that the weak and anxious can wear a mask if they want to, writes Professor Mona Holmqvist.
The debate about the effect of oral protection use to reduce the spread of el bichito-19 is alive to a much greater degree than in Sweden, despite the WHO's recommendations. When there is also research that indicates that oral protection works to reduce infection, at a time when the spread of infection in our country is escalating uncontrollably, it becomes difficult to understand that Sweden does not amow the global recommendations on the use of oral protection.
It is especially remarkable when you see the congestion in shops and public transport. Not everyone can refrain from going to work, being able to shop online or choosing times when people are sparse. One can also believe that we in Sweden are sitting on knowledge that no one else in the rest of the world has yet discovered regarding the use of mouth protection, or is the only country that has a strategy based on science that shows that it does not help.
But this is not the case, instead it seems that there is a pedagogical problem that makes Sweden have chosen to understand the use of mouth guards in a different way than other countries, perhaps due to the fact that values in Sweden are extreme and show the most individualistic and secular in the world. This is evident, for example, in World Value Surveys. The results in The Inglehart – Welzel cultural map of the world 2020 place Sweden as the country that, on the parameter survival versus self-realization, is at least governed by values that affect survival and to a very high degree prioritizes values that involve our own self-realization. Maybe that's the reason why the rhetoric about mouth guards has taken a strange turn in comparison with other countries in the world, where the use of mouth guards is about showing solidarity?
A decision on recommendations is not just based on facts. We also have our own experiences with us when we need to understand new situations, which affects our ability to understand the information presented. The argument in other countries is that it is also the young, strong and healthy, who are affected to such a small extent that they often do not even notice that they are infected, who should show solidarity and keep their possible bichito particles to themselves by using mouth guards . Although research shows that there is a reduced risk for those who use oral protection to become infected, and that oral hygiene users are less likely to be infected than those who do not use oral protection, this is not the main reason why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends use. of mouth guards. The main argument is: your mouthguard helps protect those around you.
But in the Swedish context, the pedagogical message has meant that our citizens have instead learned that it is the weak and anxious who can wear masks if they want to. The Prime Minister stated that it is not forbidden to wear a mask. No, but the moment you put on the mask, the signal values that have been projected on the individuals for six months have taught them that it is those who do not feel safe who can put on mouth guards to alleviate their own anxiety and worry. This has resulted in the use of mouth guards signaling a kind of weakness or anxiety in the wearer, a sign that one does not understand that it does not help "for real". The strong and confident, who understand what helps and does not help are those who are without mouth guards. How could it go so wrong in a country with a high level of education?
It has also been expressed that Swedish citizens would have worse conditions for using mouth guards than citizens in other countries, despite the fact that we demonstrably have a very high level of education as well as competent citizens. As a researcher in the field of learning and teaching, I can certify that there are no obstacles whatsoever to teach Swedish citizens to use mouth guards in an appropriate way. There are also no good grounds for signaling that mouth guards should be used by the weak and anxious, or that it makes no difference. In dentistry and healthcare, it is not mainly those who are sick and anxious, the patients, but the staff who use mouth guards.
When considering whether measures should be taken to reduce the spread of infection, health aspects should of course be taken into account. Using a mouth guard does not pose any risks to the user. On the other hand, it can help those who carry the bichito unknowingly and risk infecting others to be prevented from doing so, which saves on the suffering of others, as well as healthcare staff and resources.
The argument that anyone can use mouth guards if they want to is disgusting. We see that the spread of infection is most pronounced in socio-economically weak groups and among young people. Both have a limited financial situation, which means that society disclaims responsibility for the possibility of equal protection when these groups are not offered free oral protection. If you have to choose between buying food or mouth protection, there is really no choice. If we have the financial resources to expand healthcare as the spread of infection increases, we should reasonably be able to offer oral protection to prevent the need for such an expansion.
el bichito-19 is currently the third most common cause of death in Sweden. This means that everyone will be affected by the fact that you or someone close to you becomes seriously ill. Just the idea that the use of mouth guards can reduce the possibility of more people becoming infected and at risk of becoming seriously ill should be reason enough to both amow WHO's recommendations and give everyone the opportunity to use mouth guards. How would we have reacted if there was an ever so small chance that we had found such a simple, cheap and harmless remedy to reduce the risk of cancer? And what is it that makes us in Sweden, unlike other countries, not talk about mouth protection for the young and healthy in the work of protecting those in risk group; grandparents, a heart-sick sister or aunt with high blood pressure?
Unlike the Swedish Public Health Agency, I have good faith in and am completely convinced that everyone who lives in Sweden can learn to use mouthguards in an appropriate way so as not to spread the infection to others. Otherwise, we have a lot of research on learning and teaching in our country that we can assist with to create good pedagogical conditions for such learning.
Mona Holmqvist Professor of Educational Sciences, Malmö University
