Slashdot Mirror


Fighting the Flu May Hurt Those Around You

sciencehabit writes "When you've got the flu, it can't hurt to take an aspirin or an ibuprofen to control the fever and make you feel better, right? Wrong, some scientists say. Lowering your body temperature may make the virus replicate faster and increase the risk that you transmit it to others. A new study claims that there are at least 700 extra influenza deaths in the United States every year because people suppress their fever."

16 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So... by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. You're fucked, because you took drugs to feel better.

    You may be more contageous because of the bugs replicating, but the real problem is the huge number of them flooding and overwhelming your own system.

  2. Re:I've always wondered that about antihistamines by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With infections, I've always taken the approach of doing only as much symptom-relief as absolutely for my sanity/productivity/safety. Things like fever and coughing are part of the body's immune response, and letting them do their work will result in a faster recovery, so I'll put up with the discomfort and inconvenience.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  3. Aches & Pains by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think most people (myself included) take the meds for 'aches and pains' and to sleep. The fever gets suppressed as a byproduct of those meds. If there was some way to take meds to keep the fever without aching joints and a screaming headache that would be fine with me.

  4. Stay Home by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm quite sure the larger contributing factor to the flu spreading is people going to work while sick, not a suppressed fever.

    Much better approach would be creating a culture in the USA where its OK to stay home when sick.

    But of course we can't do that, because SOCIALISM.

    1. Re:Stay Home by Spacelem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Socialism doesn't keep you at work, when you're sick, that's capitalism, with its "performance at the expense of everything else" approach. Or were you being sarcastic? (I can't tell).

      Also, socialism provides free medical care to sick people, so they don't just put things off and get worse and worse until eventually they eventually either need an emergency room (at a much higher cost), or spread communicable but treatable diseases like TB. It also makes medicine cheaper because of collective bargaining, rather than allowing each person to try to bargain for something that they can't do without.

    2. Re:Stay Home by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trust me, it's being paid for by everyone (including the one getting the "free" healthcare) - but the costs are hidden in your taxes.

      You say that like it's not also true without socialized or universal heathcare. The only difference is that the costs are hidden in taxes, unpaid debt, and lost productivity instead of merely taxes. Or did you think all those unpaid medical bills just disappeared?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  5. Here's how to fix this... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's an idea.. Get sick, stay home! If you wan to medicate at home, knock yourself out. Just don't come to work and avoid going out in public.

    Employers should be *actively* looking though their employees and sending home those who are sick. Have a fever? Go home. Don't come back until at least 24 hours w/o a fever. Take your laptop, work from home. Day Care's should have the *same* policy for workers and children, don't come in if you had a fever in the last 24 hours.

    I'm serious, this *should* be a matter of law. I know that it won't fix everything, but it sure will slow down a virus if folks would be careful. I live with a person who has a compromised immune system. Getting a virus is a *serious* deal for us and may someday kill them. We have to be extremely careful and I just hate it when I have to deal with people who are obviously ill in public.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Here's how to fix this... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That works great until you start thinking about the fact that at many work places, people get very few sick days, and many don't get any paid sick days. Unless you can fix that problem, you're going to have a lot of trouble getting people to take sick days when they can still make it into work. If you only get 5 or 6 paid sick days a year, then you're going to want to keep those in case something really nasty comes along, like gastroenteritis (aka, the stomach flu), or if their kid gets sick and they have to stay home with the kid.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. Re:That's a laughable risk... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the population of the USA the percentage of the population killed each year by this is 0.00022300095%. On the other hand deaths for the flu have been as low as 3000 yearly so that's 23.3% of deaths. Still, the number of deaths compared to the population makes it comparable to winning the lottery in any case.

    As low as 3000 deaths? If people knew the flu killed 3000 people (in an off year!), we could justify interment camps for infected people and monitor all phone calls to find out who complains of symptoms. We could create a cabinet level government department with a multi-billion-dollar budget just for battling the flu.

    Or not. Because the flu generally doesn't also commit spectacular acts of property destruction and it kills its victims quietly in homes and hospital beds with no one to watch or mourn except the victims' actual friends and family.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  7. Re:I've always wondered that about antihistamines by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, it's not an allergic reaction on the virus. Allergic is a reaction if the target would be harmless to the body. But a virus is not, and the reaction is actually necessary. Suppressing the reaction thus means the virus is not attacked at all, or at least it is attacked with a reduced intensity. So while you might feel better with Benadryl, in fact you are in the same camp like the people who suppress the fever -- being sick longer, being contagious longer, and thus prolonging the flu waves.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  8. Re:Probably going out/to work by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny, in North America, people get so few vacation/sick days that they feel they have to use up all of both. People will often call in sick when they really just want a vacation day. People think it's their duty to use up all their sick days, whether they are actually sick or not. And then they wonder why the quota for sick days is so low....

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  9. Re:human germs don't like higher body temp by BobMcD · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If your temp goes over 101 and you don't know EXACTLY why and are 100% sure you will be ok, go to the hospital immediately.

    I hate to break it to you, but that emergency room nurse is not going to know 'EXACTLY why' either. And the doctor is going to pick the nearest-to-hand pharmaceutical that matches your symptoms and avoids your allergies.

    If you genuinely believe doctors ever know 'EXACTLY why' then I'd like to discuss some real estate opportunities you may also be interested in...

  10. Re:Probably going out/to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > People think it's their duty to use up all their sick days

    That is the effect of setting a quota. In civilised countries you get as many sick days as your health requires.

  11. Re:Probably going out/to work by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The quota for sick days is low because there's not much respect for working people by people that are getting rich off of them. It gets better the higher up the payscale you go (particularly in an office environment, where they've finally figured out that one person coming in sick means having dozens of people sick and underperforming for weeks on end while the infection runs its course) but it's still a problem that needs to be managed.

    People work better when they're healthy and well rested, and people that are healthy and well rested tend to stay that way.

    I don't know many people that call in sick for vacation days; we don't actually have an allotment of days at my office. You're just expected to tell people that you're sick so the work can be taken care of, take care of yourself, and come back as soon as is reasonable. But I'm a Canadian in Canada. It's been like this more or less my entire professional life.

  12. Re:So... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you're sick enough to (feel you) need medication, stay at home.

    Don't spread germs all over the workplace / auditorium / public mass transport.

    Sorry, but that's not how things work these days.

    If you don't come in and work many hours every day then you are the obvious candidate for replacement by someone who will.

    So suck down those anti-fever drugs and get to work!

  13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is why I work from home. None of you filthy child bearers running around with what ever disease your larva picked up from other larva.