Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

health.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#101

Post by jaclaz »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #80
riffraff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in Italy. 36-36.6 is considered normal, 37 is considered a mild alteration (or life threatening disease if you're a man).

that's for a very specific reason: improved accuracy. Let me explain: measurements were usually taken externally from armpits, using analog mercury thermometers, which results in temperatures lower than the actual one by ~0.5 degrees Celsius. If you read the instruction manual of modern digital thermometers, that are more accurate, it states that Oral Time: ~55 seconds Typical temperature interval: 35,5~37,5 °C Anal…

Personally I strongly doubt that "modern" thermometers are in practice more accurate than good ol' mercury ones.

The contactless infrared ones, but also the contact digital ones have been proved to provide "false measurements", the stated accuracy is usually +/- 0.2 C, but there are many (ambient) factors that may influence greatly the result, the good thing being that they are very fast.

The gallium/galistan ones (1:1 replacement for mercury ones) are often hard to read (they are almost all of the "prismatic" kind) and more often than not they simply get "stuck", and they are very, very, slow.

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#102

Post by piyush_soni »

asats wrote: post #4

Not sure if it's all the countries, but I have always heard the normal body temperature in Celsius stated as 36.5, which is 97.7 F. Is 98.6 an american-only thing?

We've been using 98.6F as the threshold for fever in India for as long as I can remember (I'm 40 years old) even though for everything else we use the Celsius scale.

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#103

Post by romwell »

mantas wrote: post #47
throwaway290 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

37 degrees (98.6 F) could already get you off school if you're lucky...

36.9 with a sad face would do.. I mean mercury is past 9 mark so it's pretty much 37, right?

Being friends with the household cat was very important for such strategies ;)

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#105

Post by petodo »

People worry too much about temperature/fever, if you have efever (clearly) caused by infection anything below 40.6C is fine and safe and fever reducing drugs are just to make you more comfortable, but they don't really lower any danger.

It's common myth people thinking their kids brain can get fried from infection, which is pretty much impossible, it can get fried from overheating in hot enviroment, but it's pretty much impossible just from infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145646/

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#106

Post by kolinko »

riffraff wrote: post #56
kolinko wrote: post #9

In Poland normal has always been considered 36.6C, which is 97.9F, which the article states as a proposed new normal.

Same in Italy. 36-36.6 is considered normal, 37 is considered a mild alteration (or life threatening disease if you're a man).

As for being a man - I think there was research that showed that men indeed have it worse during common cold :)

Also, I was one of the men that complained a ton during cold. Turned out, at the age of 34, that I had a deviated septum and the level of nose congestion when I was healthy was comparable to when I was healthy. Even slight cold was absurdly doffucult for me. Since they fixed it, the colds are super light for me.

But I had to take my girlfriends’ laughs for 8 years each time I had cold.

I never miss an opportunity to mention this story when people laugh about some people having „man colds”.

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#107

Post by bogantech »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #82
halper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, memories of quiet summer days in Western Australia! No emergencies as far as the eye can see. The wind feels like a hair dryer in the face. Ah yes, a summer day in the sticks.

You know, there might be a reason the population density in Western Australia is reportedly 1 person per square kilometer. Or as Population Australia put it: > The state’s capital city is Perth. Perth has an estimated population of over 2.7 million people. > Western Australia is Australia’s largest state. Its total area is 2,529,875 km² which accounts for 33 percent of Australia’s total land mass. > Based on our rese…

The population density of Sydney is 2037 people per square KM according to Wikipedia, it's not uncommon to get days with a temperature of 35-40 degrees and we aren't dropping like flies either.

I quite like a nice warm day.

Humans live in warmer climates than that and have done since before the invention of air conditioning.

You might feel uncomfortable if you're not used to it but you're not going to die if you stay hydrated

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#108

Post by fnordpiglet »

kqr wrote: post #100
kqr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't always care to this accuracy. We just used the anal temperature and went on with our day. Then we got the ear canal thermometer for convenience and discovered that the result was not what we expected, so I got curious and started keeping detailed records... But in the end, I want to get to the point where you are, using a rough rule of thumb. I'm just taking the evidence-based route there!

Hah! I just now realised the English word is "rectal" not "anal" but it seems my comment influenced plenty of other people to use the wrong word too!

Only an anal person would care. You’re good.

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#109

Post by bombcar »

kqr wrote: post #100
kqr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't always care to this accuracy. We just used the anal temperature and went on with our day. Then we got the ear canal thermometer for convenience and discovered that the result was not what we expected, so I got curious and started keeping detailed records... But in the end, I want to get to the point where you are, using a rough rule of thumb. I'm just taking the evidence-based route there!

Hah! I just now realised the English word is "rectal" not "anal" but it seems my comment influenced plenty of other people to use the wrong word too!

The name matters much less than making sure you don’t get the various thermometers confused.

Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)

#110

Post by bombcar »

IanOzsvald wrote: post #91
kqr wrote: post #52

The whole enterprise of trying to find "a normal" temperature seems silly to me, increasingly after getting two kids with fevers every now and then. We use both high-quality ear canal and anal thermometers, and while we have enough statistical grounds to unbias their results compared to each other, there remains significant variance. I.e. if we use an anal or ear canal thermometer makes temperature vary ±0.4 °C. Then…

With our infant using a digital thermometer in the ear, we routinely observe that the left ear is hotter than the right. We take 3 measurements in each ear, we see a similar variance as you mention per ear. Have you observed a similar difference? As adults with the same device we don't see a difference in our own ears.

I wonder if taking a temperature after laying in your side sleeping would noticeably change based on which ear you were sleeping on.
Post reply on HN