Passengers Cheat Flu Scan With Fever Reducers

Nguyen Van Chau, head of Ho Chi Minh City's Health Department, has revealed that many sick passengers who flew to Ho Chi Minh City used fever reducers to fool temperature scanners at the airport. The government has confirmed 26 people infected with H1N1 flu, 23 of whom came by air after traveling in the United States or Australia. State media reports that the discovery of these scanner cheaters led to the detection of several infected cases later.

Comments

wow

[rand200069]

I thought tylenol, ibuprofen, and the like were pretty commonly used when people get sick. How is this news, besides the fact that they decided to implement a ridiculous screening process that is easily bypassed?

Re:Wait...

[interkin3tic]

H1N1 is a bit miffed about it.

Also the statements by the government quoted in TFA makes it sound a little like the passengers did it intentionally because they knew they were sick and would be detained for 7 days.

Sounds to me more like justification for making examples out of people who were feeling unwell. Punishing "cheaters" to send a message goes over much better than punishing "people who took asprin because they didn't feel well, not realizing they had swine flu"

Re:simple, they were tracked down as sources

[dgatwood]

To all those defending those who traveled while sick: I'm sorry, but if there is a travel ban because of a well publicized disease that is killing people, and you don't feel well, sit your selfish ass down in bed where it belongs. My parents raised me to stay home if I was sick, because it's beyond rude to make those around you sick. The regular flu kills kids and the elderly all the time. This one is much nastier.

There are several very fundamental problems with your logic:

• You are forgetting that most major airlines refuse to allow people to change economy flights on account of illness. The result is that people fly when their tickets say they have to fly. Blame the airlines for their ridiculous flight change policies. Until they change those policies, this entire discussion is moot.
• Even if the airline were willing to change the flight date or the passenger had the money to buy a new ticket, you are still assuming that the passenger would be able to get another flight at a later date. Given how full most flights are, this is not a given.
• You are assuming that people are deliberately trying to avoid getting caught. People who have fevers take cold medicine to make them feel better, not to evade thermal scans. Most people don't even know that they do such things at some airports.
• You are assuming that sick people are always flying from their home to somewhere else. If you get sick while on vacation thousands of miles from home, staying home isn't an option. Your choices are: A. fly back or B. spend potentially several thousand dollars for a last-second hotel room so that you can avoid traveling while sick. Even if you choose to book additional nights at a hotel, you are still risking infecting the housekeeping staff who could spread it to other hotel guests, infecting the restaurant staff while getting meals, infecting the cab driver who has to take you to get medical care because you have no car or other means of transportation, etc.
• You are assuming that the people were sick when they left on the first leg of their flight. This is also not always the case. Illness can come on quite suddenly.

I've been there back in summer of 2005---sick in Italy on the last day of a two week trip---and let me tell you that it isn't fun. I started out the first leg (from Italy to Heathrow) not feeling great but not terrible. It felt like a cold. By the time I left Heathrow, I was feeling miserable. By the time I got to California, it was a good thing my parents were in town visiting and could pick me up where the bus dropped me off. I would not have been able to roll my luggage the three blocks from where the bus dropped me off back to my house. Staying behind, however, was clearly not an option. I was sick for almost two weeks after that, and would have ended up spending upwards of $4,000 to postpone my return that far, not to mention the problem of getting to medical care without anyone there to drive me, the problem of getting food, etc.

While it's a nice idea (in theory) to avoid traveling while sick, in practice, it is a rather naive notion that doesn't take into account the practicality of doing so. One cannot "stay home" if one gets sick while already away from home.