No, Mouthwash Will Not Save You From the Coronavirus (nytimes.com) 186
You may have noticed a rash of provocative headlines this week suggesting that mouthwash can "inactivate" coronaviruses and help curb their spread. While the news is based on a new study from researchers at the Penn State College of Medicine, it's important to note that the study focused on a coronavirus that causes common colds -- not the one that causes COVID-19. "Not only did the study not investigate this deadly new virus, but it also did not test whether mouthwash affects how viruses spread from person to person," adds Katherine J. Wu via The New York Times. From the report: "I don't have a problem with using Listerine," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University. "But it's not an antiviral." The study, which was published last month in the Journal of Medical Virology, looked only at a coronavirus called 229E that causes common colds -- not the new coronavirus, which goes by the formal name of SARS-CoV-2, and causes far more serious disease. Researchers can study SARS-CoV-2 only in high-security labs after undergoing rigorous training. The two viruses are in the same family, and, in broad strokes, look anatomically similar, which can make 229E a good proxy for SARS-CoV-2 in certain experiments. But the two viruses shouldn't be thought of as interchangeable, Dr. Rasmussen said.
The researchers tested the virus-destroying effects of several products, including a watered-down mixture of Johnson's baby shampoo -- which is sometimes used to flush out the inside of the nose -- and mouthwashes made by Listerine, Crest, Orajel, Equate and C.V.S. They flooded 229E coronaviruses, which had been grown in human liver cells in the lab, with these chemicals for 30 seconds, 1 minute or 2 minutes -- longer than the typical swig or spritz into a nose or mouth. Around 90 to 99 percent of the viruses could no longer infect cells after this exposure, the study found.
But because the study didn't recruit any human volunteers to gargle the products in question, the findings have limited value for the real world, other experts said. The human mouth, full of nooks and crannies and a slurry of chemicals secreted by a diverse cadre of cells, is far more complicated than the inside of a laboratory dish. Nothing should be considered conclusive "unless human studies are performed," said Dr. Maricar Malinis, an infectious disease expert at Yale University. [...] Even if people did a very thorough job coating the inside of their mouths or noses with a coronavirus-killing chemical, a substantial amount of the virus would still remain in the body. The new coronavirus infiltrates not only the mouth and nose, but also the deep throat and lungs, where mouthwash and nasal washes hopefully never enter. Viruses that have already hidden away inside cells will also be shielded from the fast-acting chemicals found in these products.
The researchers tested the virus-destroying effects of several products, including a watered-down mixture of Johnson's baby shampoo -- which is sometimes used to flush out the inside of the nose -- and mouthwashes made by Listerine, Crest, Orajel, Equate and C.V.S. They flooded 229E coronaviruses, which had been grown in human liver cells in the lab, with these chemicals for 30 seconds, 1 minute or 2 minutes -- longer than the typical swig or spritz into a nose or mouth. Around 90 to 99 percent of the viruses could no longer infect cells after this exposure, the study found.
But because the study didn't recruit any human volunteers to gargle the products in question, the findings have limited value for the real world, other experts said. The human mouth, full of nooks and crannies and a slurry of chemicals secreted by a diverse cadre of cells, is far more complicated than the inside of a laboratory dish. Nothing should be considered conclusive "unless human studies are performed," said Dr. Maricar Malinis, an infectious disease expert at Yale University. [...] Even if people did a very thorough job coating the inside of their mouths or noses with a coronavirus-killing chemical, a substantial amount of the virus would still remain in the body. The new coronavirus infiltrates not only the mouth and nose, but also the deep throat and lungs, where mouthwash and nasal washes hopefully never enter. Viruses that have already hidden away inside cells will also be shielded from the fast-acting chemicals found in these products.
But what about bleach? (Score:4, Funny)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But what about bleach? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no. Bleach does not kill you. Homemade mouthwashes with bleach are actually a thing too. A dumb thing perhaps, but not deadly.
As long as you don not actually drink bleach, you will not die. And here is an eyeopener for ya: you are not supposed to drink mouthwash!
Re: (Score:2)
If you drink it, it will be.
For the most part the body can deal with toxins fairly well. However if you drink too much it will kill you.
Mouthwash will kill you if you drink it, but you will need a much higher dosage than Bleach. You can digest a small amount of bleach with no problems.
But if you are going to make homemade mouthwash with bleach. You better be sure you are using just the right amount, too little will be ineffective, too much will make you ill or kill you. When something is more toxic, get
Re: But what about bleach? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know but basically I don't think one would want to gargle with something that killed everything, even viruses, in your mouth and throat.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have evolved to better manage Alcohol. Especially with levels common on fermented drinks (beer, wine). Distilled drinks we are pushing it further. But still it is better than bleach which we haven't evolved too much protection against.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He was obviously being sarcastic when he said that. On live TV.
Re: But what about bleach? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so obvious. Yes, it's what the fans claim. But maybe you can't understand Trump's style of sarcasm unless you've been to ten rallies and understand the pacing of his patter. But from what showed on TV to the uninitiated, he was clearly winging it, unscripted, with stream of consciousness streaming out of his mouth and no sarcasm.
However, *if* it really was sarcasm, why is that a good thing? Should a president, the leader of the free world, actually be sarcastic during a press briefing on a serious p
Re: (Score:2)
It is like a pyramid scheme. First there are 10 people who vote for him hoping for great things. They end up in his cabinet and running various agencies. They get 10 other people to vote for him each, and are rewarded with lesser favors. The third generation ends up with a supply of Trump steaks, the fourth end up with a Trump University degree. One of the generations was rewarded with a red hat, but the bottom tier is currently making their own hats out of dryer lint and a red marker pen.
Re: (Score:2)
It not only kills the virus but whitens your teeth. A two for one deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear sitting in the Chernobyl reactor for a few days will kill off coronavirus...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it might save you from mask-breath. (Score:4, Funny)
It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:2, Insightful)
All discussion about coronavirus is purely political now. In the US, the government is trying to say the situation isn't anything to worry about, to help get re-elected. In Canada, the government is trying to say this is the most severe crisis we've ever seen, in order to keep attention away from their recent major WE ethics scandal. Literally everywhere else, p
Re:It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:5, Informative)
The facts are: go check the trend of cases and deaths in literally any country, state, province, city, etc. in the world, and you will find the same story: as lockdowns have subsided, cases are soaring amongst the general population, but deaths have largely stalled since the end of May.
Well your brain has largely stalled.
Florida [worldometers.info]
Texas [worldometers.info]
Both are clearly at higher deaths than the end of May.
Having largely mitigated the vulnerable populations, we are literally now tracking cases of a common cold virus - for anyone not in a nursing home, both the science and data say the human immune system has no problem dealing with this virus.
You are getting desperate now. What a stupid thing to claim.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bravo. Found two US states as exceptions. Why don't you take a look at Europe? In NL the infected numbers are now 9 times higher than spring but deaths are 10 times lower. And the part about nursing homes is absolutely correct.
Re:It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going to cherry pick an example at least pick one that matches what you're trying to claim. The average at the end of May was 20. It dipped down to zero and is already back up to 30.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/... [www.cbs.nl]
"In the first six months of 2020, there were more than 86 thousand deaths registered in the Netherlands. This is almost 9 thousand more than in the first half of 2019 and over 5 thousand more than in the same period in 2018."
So 10% more deaths than last year so far in the Netherlands. Most people seriously underestimate the sheer amount of people with comorbidities. It is likely not so bad as in the USA, where 40% of the total population have them, but my guess is, at the ve
Re: (Score:3)
I'm very interested in how the numbers here will develop over the coming week or two - given the increased testing since the first round, the fact we have record numbers of confirmed cases doesn't bother me much until we see that reflected in hospitalizations and deaths. The current semi-lockdown we have here doesn't seem to be helping nearly as much as the one earlier in the year, so the virus is star
Re:It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you look yourself? We had 2-3 daily deaths in summer in Germany, but 44 yesterday. Spain had fewer than 10 deaths per day in summer, now they have between 100 and 200 deaths every day.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I just looked. Germany had moving average 7 days of 215 deaths at the peak of the first wave (with infection rate of 5213 moving 7-day average). Now you have 31 moving 7 day average (of course you picked the highest number of 44, way to go tiger) and 5813 of the infections. Thus at similar rate of infection you have 6 times lower death rate.
Do not presume that anything is wrong with me, ignoramus! The GP and myself were comparing the first and second waves, not the summer dip (which is perfectly expected d
Re: (Score:2)
Similar rate of infections, or similar rate of those infections confirmed by testing?
Re: (Score:3)
You're seriously comparing the same day for infections and deaths? That's a bit silly.
You know covid doesn't always kill you on the same day you are diagnosed with it...
I just looked. Germany had moving average 7 days of 215 deaths at the peak of the first wave (with infection rate of 5213 moving 7-day average).
Your numbers are just made up. [worldometers.info] From the 7 day averages, April 2nd 5837 infections was the peak of the first wave. And the peak in deaths wasn't until 239 on April 18 and 238 April 20. Over 2 weeks later. April 2nd was only averaging 120 dead.
Now you are trying to compare the same days infections and deaths...
You're 31 average deaths tod
Re: (Score:3)
Thus at similar rate of infection you have 6 times lower death rate.
Yeah, that's because in February-March the disease spread widely before we started detecting it. So most infected people were never tested unless they got seriously ill. Whereas now most case chains have been detected already, and the people around them tested, so there are few undetected cases. So there are more detected cases per death right now, that doesn't imply there are more actual cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't [usatoday.com]. Thousands still die from the flu, not specifically H1N1. In fact, the CDC has said its estimates for the 2018-2019 flu show only 34,200 people died in the U.S. from the flu.
Compare that to the almost 230,000 people dead from covid-19.
Re: (Score:3)
If this was a disease with a serious risk of killing you and/or your family,
I don't know about you, but it has already killed one of my grandparents.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In the last 10 years or so my mother lost almost all her classmates and friends (first the men, then one by one, the women) to....flu. Every winter when we talked over the phone she would say "Let's see how many old folks will the flu take away this winter and if I will survive to see the spring again".
So, I really have no clue what are you trying to say or refute with that statement.
Just like these re-infection cases, all the 3 of them (the lady in NL had a cancer and was after chemo - are you surprised he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:3)
Yes, that is the upside of dealing with covid-19. These protocols the CDC rolled out came from the 1918 playbook for defeating influenza so I have no doubt our flu infections are bottoming out. Frankly I am surprised we had any infections at all. Some people must really be shirking these protocols hard in order to catch the flu. More than just masks.
We have seen how some people get bent out of shape over masks, but hand washing? Apparently people still insist on putting their hands in their mouth without w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
35.7% of tests in SD are positive.
Not that SD isn't doing terribly:
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
Re: It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:2)
Im talking about the flu. Try to keep up
Re: (Score:3)
Can we as a society, please calm down and have a talk around the facts of COVID-19, which will hopefully put an end to this ongoing spectacle?
Instead of talking about "facts", how about instead you put effort into understanding facts (no quotations marks around it this time). It may make the rest of your post sound less stupid.
we are literally now tracking cases of a common cold virus
In case there was any doubt about your complete lack of knowledge about viruses and their mortality, you really put that to rest with this statement. You can count on one hand the number of people who die each year from the "common cold virus" (err I assume you mean the 200+ viruses), and they are pretty much all immunosupp
Re: (Score:2)
Masks are insanity? No, you're very stupid, masks work.
Freedoms? You are not free to endanger the lives of other people, freedoms have limits.
It's not rocket science to say that if 10% of the population have had COVID then that's 90% who haven't had it and the death toll could potentially be nearly 90% higher (or a bit less with herd immunity) if the virus was left unchecked.
Re: It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:2)
Your math is off just a bit. If 90% has yet to be infected then it cannot potentially still kill 90%. Simply put, if the mortality rate was 100% we would not be having the drama of mask wearing. You can bet your ass that if this was Ebola spreading like wildfire and having a pre-symptomatic period of seven+ days, people would not just wear masks, but full body condoms. The feedback cycle of something like that is immediately felt/seen/known. With ambiguity comes drama. You could do nothing and be one of the
Re: (Score:2)
I said the death toll could be 90% higher minus the herd immunity bit. 90% higher than the current death toll not 90% of all people.
Re: It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:2)
Ahh. Well that makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Studies show masks stop 75% of infections between the public. Scientific consensus is that the virus is mainly airborne spread, not generally via fomites.
"And no, if the remaining 90% of the population catches coronavirus, the death rate will not be 90% higher"
It's simple maths stupid, that chart has no relevance. If 10x as many people cathc covid then 10x as many people die.
Where on earth do you get your info from? Infowars? Fox? Facebook?
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
ht [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, the government is trying to say this is the most severe crisis we've ever seen
I'm in Canada - in Toronto even, which is having a tougher time of it than the west coast. And your claim is pure bullshit. Please go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know how to prevent excess deaths from coronavirus now, and it has to do with special precautions at specific facilities. Things like lockdowns and masks among the general population are nothing but insanity and politics anymore. We can all stop the mask-rage, and go on with our normal lives.
|
Only if you ignore the fact nearly every study is showing there is likely more more permanent damage being done to those who survive COVDI-19 infection, even children. It's still not fully understood, and will likely not be so for another few years. There is not reasonable certainty yet that a mild case of COVID-19 does not do damage to one or more organs, Besides the lungs, heart, kidney, liver and even brain damage have been observed among hospitalized survivors, creating life-long health issues for the
Re: (Score:2)
The number of COVID cases isn't going to zero. It isn't going to magically disappear. So what do you want?
You need to listen to the expert. He knows more about viruses than anyone...
I'll let him tell you.
Re: It's only politics left with COVID... (Score:2)
What lockdowns? At most I see limits on capacity and gatherings, social distancing, and a mask mandate. Where is there an actual lockdown?
Re: (Score:2)
Elect Biden and the lockdowns will stop
More than likely: Elect Biden and the lockdowns will start. Serious lockdowns like in Wuhan and Italy. On the other hand, the lifting of lockdowns will be purely political. Antifa demonstrations may commence after a short period. Churches, gun stores and gyms will remain locked down for the forseeable future.
In the final analysis it won't really matter. 100% of the population is destined to be exposed to the virus. Your probability of dying probably can't be altered much by hospitalization or other treatme
Not Useless Either.... (Score:4, Interesting)
"But it's not an antiviral."
"Several overâtheâcounter mouthwash/gargle products including Listerine and Listerineâlike products were highly effective at inactivating infectious virus with greater than 99.9% even with a 30âs contact time."
So, which of these statements is true then? It sounds like a damn good viral prophylactic to me, with no down-side side-effects.
Re: (Score:3)
There are people who down-play the virus, but there are also those who up-play it. Both need not be taken serious.
Mouthwash will help a little bit. Washing your mouth with a glass of rum or whisky will also likely reduce the number of viruses in your mouth since alcohol kills more than brain cells. It kills many viruses, too, and it will likely reduce the number of COVID19 viruses in your mouth as well.
However, since COVID19 affects mostly the lungs and reproduces in there in large quantities will alcohol a
Re: (Score:2)
"There are people who down-play the virus, but there are also those who up-play it. Both need not be taken serious."
Ya, should be easy to figure out whether a person is up-playing or down-playing. We should develop a Serious-O-Meter with blinky lights telling us whether the person is being truthful. In advanced versions, it could be called a Lie Detector.
Re: (Score:2)
He could have been right had he ever said that. But he never did. The credit is not his, whether right or wrong.
Re: Not Useless Either.... (Score:2)
So, assuming its somehow tied to alcohol exposure combined with time, could that mean the 4hrs every day my mouth comes in contact with red wine or tequila can serve as some protection too? ;-) thats way longer than 2min. I assume inactivated and killed is somehow different and thats why they said not anti-viral.
Re: (Score:2)
I
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it depends if you breath through your nose or through your mouth.
I suppose you could get a nelly pot and wash your nose out with mouthwash periodically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could call it an antiviral, but only for your mouth.
Even if you breathe through your mouth like I generally do (cue jokes, whatever, but my nose is fucked up) most of what you breathe in doesn't land in your mouth. It goes to your lungs. Cleaning out your mouth of the let's-call-it-5%-that-lands-there* isn't going to affect the let's-call-it-95% in your lungs.
* If you have better numbers, let's see 'em
Do you put mouthwash in your nose? (Score:2)
Would it matter? (Score:2)
You breathe in and out of your lungs at least half a cubic meter of air per hour. If that is full of virus particles how is cleaning the entrance now and then going to make a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The virus itself isn't airborne. So your breath itself will not be full of viruses. Rather does your breath contain tiny droplets of water and inside those droplets will the virus be able to live on for a while outside your body. So no, mouthwash will do little here. But if it kills the viruses in your mouth then there is less of a chance of spreading the virus through droplets of saliva, which can be rather big droplets, or sometimes drops.
Of course mouthwash isn't not going to end all viruses. Nor are fac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Would it matter? (Score:2)
Contact exposure. If touching a surface, and later putting your hands in your mouth (indirectly while eating), introduces a virus in your mouth, then a mouthwash could kill that virus if it came in contact prior to it infecting the soft pallet of your mouth. But as you said, its not the primary method of infection, nor is it practical to use mouthwash every 30 minutes, Im fairly sure the soft tissue in your mouth would suffer damage from that much exposure. With viruses where contact exposure IS the primary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mouthwash for the nose is an interesting concept :)
I use Vicks First Defence:
https://www.vicks.co.uk/en-gb/... [vicks.co.uk]
It's meant to make the nose less hospitable for viruses. They won't claim that it kills the SARS one, but probably won't harm if you try.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting - vitamin E and Zinc sprayed on a mucus membrane with antiinflamatories.
Maybe not the most ideal or frugal route, but people won't take their vitamins so why not.
Re: Do you put mouthwash in your nose? (Score:2)
Hmm. That brings up a question Ive not seen answered. Does using a netti pot increase or decrease your chance of exposure? Does stripping everything out of your sinus cavity and replacing it with warm fertile saltwater solution create a perfect breeding ground? Or are you flushing away a bunch of virus trying to work its way into your body? We do know that the cells in your sinuses, like the lungs, are high in ACE2 proteins.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a virus. So it can't breed in saltwater, it needs a cell to invade and takeover.
The question then becomes does saltwater help or hinder it from infecting cells?
Maybe it slows the spread [pharmalive.com] But those people were already infected. Might just be like a mask and help lessen the chance of infecting others.
It won't stop you from breathing covid into your lungs. But some that landed in the sinus could be killed I guess.
I didn't actually read the details, I could be a bit wrong. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Re: Do you put mouthwash in your nose? (Score:2)
I like the screen name btw. Former phreak?
Re: Do you put mouthwash in your nose? (Score:2)
Dental work and Coronavirus (Score:2)
Many people have been putting off dental work. Others have been brushing and flossing less as the pandemic keeps them at home and away from work or with less customer interaction. I'm concerned for children and families learning bad oral hygiene practices during the pandemic, and for those who expect dentists to treat years of neglect after they return to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My dentist's office added two new drive-through windows.
People don't understand "inactivate" (Score:2)
Inactivation isn't "killing".
And ignorant people are conflating inactivation and killing.
Re: (Score:2)
>Inactivation isn't "killing".
That is true, but a live virus that can't infect is probably just as good as being dead. Even though it would be a single location, the mouth is where most infectious droplets emanate.
The real problem is that this study is just that, a study, not an actual experiment. Plus, even if it did inactivate 90 to 99% in the mouth (which is far from proven), how much utility is that? How long does that remain useful until the mouth is replenished with fresh virus? 30 min? One h
Re: (Score:2)
No, I haven't (Score:3)
You may have noticed a rash of provocative headlines this week
No, I haven't because I don't go to conspiracy sites or the Fox tabloid.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I go to the Washington Post, which while certainly not completely trustworthy, seems better than the alternatives. And the Washington Times, which I find less trustworthy than the Post, but provides an alternate viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
As bad as journalism is today, when it seems every outlet is just pushing a partisan agenda, it may have been worse in the past. There has never been a time in the US when journalism wasn't very politically biased, but there have been times when the bias was so one-sided t
Re: (Score:2)
As bad as journalism is today, when it seems every outlet is just pushing a partisan agenda, it may have been worse in the past.
Mark Twain seems to have been in agreement: That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking, and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
but (Score:2)
After four straight years of Russia! Russia! Russia! and no apologies for the mountain of lies, why would you trust the WaPo on ANYTHING including the color of the sky and the existence of gravity without seeking independent verification?
The so-called mainstream media needs to come clean and apologize for telling thousands of times as many lies as Trump, before they can recover ANY credibility. All those now-proven false stories, all those "anonymous" sources and their anonymous quotes, all those "experts"
aha... (Score:2)
What about bourbon? (Score:2)
If I swill with Jack Daniels all day long will that protect me from covid-19?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will prevent you from leaving the house.
I think I'll use vodka as a mouthwash. For the record, I'm a swallower.
Prove it works before saying how it works (Score:2)
Actually mouthwash, and brushing your teeth regularly, has been tied to keeping inflamation down in the heart, decreasing heart disease. As some other tricks (vitamin D, Pepcid) have been tied to reducing the effects (not spread) of covid by the same mechanism, reducing inflammation leading to covid deaths, this might also be a reasonable benefit.
Not sure where "reducing viruses in the mouth, ergo spread" comes from. Sounds more like a rationalization.
In either case, first prove there's something to expla
It will work until Trump endorses it (Score:2)
Re: It will work until Trump endorses it (Score:2)
Typical (Score:2)
They flooded 229E coronaviruses, which had been grown in human liver cells in the lab, with these chemicals for 30 seconds, 1 minute or 2 minutes -- longer than the typical swig or spritz into a nose or mouth.
You are supposed to use mouthwash for 60 seconds for it to work. It says so on the label. I use it for at least 60 seconds.
But ... (Score:2)
...no mouthwash does wonders for social distancing.
Sure, but ... (Score:2)
...it might save you from garlic breath.
Fake news about fake news (Score:2)
Don't believe any "study." Don't believe what idiot "journalists" claim is in a study. Don't believe what idiot "journalists" claim debunks a study.