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

131–140 of 148 posts

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

#131

Post by simplotek »

aleken wrote: post #64
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…

I applaud your accuracy when measuring your kids' temperature. My approach when figuring out if my kids are sick is if their temperature is "high" and their general appearance and conditition is out of the ordinary. The exact decimal of the temperature doesn't matter too much by itself.

> The exact decimal of the temperature doesn't matter too much by itself.

Indeed, this pseudo-accuracy seems pointless.

The only relevant conclusions that taking the temperature can deliver is whether, a) there is no fever, b) there is a mild fever not requiring major concern, c) there is a major fever and extra care needs to be taken. No one in their right mind would classify these differences based on sub-degree differences in temperature.

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

#132

Post by hnuser123456 »

simplotek wrote: post #131
aleken wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applaud your accuracy when measuring your kids' temperature. My approach when figuring out if my kids are sick is if their temperature is "high" and their general appearance and conditition is out of the ordinary. The exact decimal of the temperature doesn't matter too much by itself.

> The exact decimal of the temperature doesn't matter too much by itself. Indeed, this pseudo-accuracy seems pointless. The only relevant conclusions that taking the temperature can deliver is whether, a) there is no fever, b) there is a mild fever not requiring major concern, c) there is a major fever and extra care needs to be taken. No one in their right mind would classify these differences based on sub-degree di…

No, but it would be cool in the nerdy sense to have a dataset of average temperatures in various conditions, or at least e.g. people are within 98-99f about 60% of the time, within 97.5-99.5 about 90% of the time, within 97-101 about 97% of the time etc, as measured by X device/method at Y time of day after "average" activity level etc.

Instead of just giving temperature, a thermometer could say "there is a 70% chance that your immune system is more active than usual" etc

Of course, small additional data points like "i'm exhausted and coughing more than usual" increase the confidence of the result by orders of magnitude over just temperature...

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

#133

Post by BenjiWiebe »

antiatheist wrote: post #46
kolinko wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The accuracy is implied in the nimber of dogots usually. So 37 is +-1C, 40 is +-10, and 36.6 is +-0.1

Would 45C be ±1 or ±10? You can't provide a scaled ranges with the digits alone like that. Just use ± or a hyphenated range, and take it in context with adjacent measurements.

+/- 5

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

#134

Post by BenjiWiebe »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #34
travisjungroth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even “around” is meaningless without context. A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10), a healthy person is around 37c (+/- 1) and a manufacturing process could call for a temp around 37c (+/- 0.1).

> A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10) Absolutely not. 47C is an emergency, not "hot".

Maybe you're thinking of wet bulb temperature?

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

#135

Post by gpvos »

lynx23 wrote: post #76
gpvos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was brought up with everything under 38 being subfebrile (Dutch "verhoging") which means to watch out, but no need to call the doctor yet.

I wouldn't call a doctor as long as I am below 40C, but thats maybe just me not wanting to uselessly overload the system... Other people seem to have different attitudes. Come to think of it, our local media just had an article saying doctors are asking patients to not come to the doctors office just because they have a little fever. A similar thing seems to happen in children ambulances. Doctors tell me that 90% of…

You don't have to call the doctor when you hit 38, but I would definitely do that before you hit 39.

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

#136

Post by ngcc_hk »

cesarb wrote: post #111
ls15 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the pandemic, some shopping centers in my area started to measure wrist temperatures. Once, my wrist was still cold from winter temperatures outside: "28.5, ok, next"

> During the pandemic, some shopping centers in my area started to measure wrist temperatures. They were supposed to measure your forehead temperature with that infrared thermometer. But due to some insane rumor spread around the net about these thermometers somehow hurting the pineal gland or something like that, everyone starting measuring on the wrist, even though it's way less accurate.

I thought use your palm is sort of ok.

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

#137

Post by ngcc_hk »

The need to have one number is strong, even though as said it is function of a lot of factors and even change over time. It is not the “normal” or average (median, mean, ..) but what is having a temperature that is more important. 100f … is that a good indicator is the issue for a vital sign like blood pressures, heart rate and breathing rate etc.

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

#138

Post by antiatheist »

syrrim wrote: post #119
antiatheist wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that the original german text uses Celsius as the primary measurement, and provides conversions in Rankine. No mention of Fahrenheit. Funny that people argue over this and some guy named Wunderlich who measured a bunch of asses. Did he write that translation or is Google Books fake news?

It's obviously not rankine, seeing as it gives a conversion of ~30R = ~40C. Looks like its actually Reaumur: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9aumur_scale

Well the more you learn, thanks.

Actually makes it even more interesting, Wunderlich and his reaming to get some Reaumurs.

What were his actual measurements taken in and how accurate was his thermometer? And who's vaginas has it been in?

Curious I get flagged for pointing out the potential measurement inaccuracies and the errs of scientific reproducibility, all while having some humor.

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

#139

Post by kbelder »

bhaney wrote: post #40

Is it possible that thermometer calibration has just drifted slightly over the last couple hundred years? If you told me that the typical electronic thermometer today actually measured around a degree different than the mercury thermometer Wunderlich presumably used, I wouldn't be all too surprised. Or is there really an accurate and consistent calibration technique that's been in use since at least the 1800s, so we…

freezing point of water/boiling point of water are pretty stable temperature checkpoints, once we learned to fix pressure and contamination....

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

#140

Post by jaclaz »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #123
jaclaz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Personally I strongly doubt that "modern" thermometers are in practice more accurate than good ol' mercury ones. they are not more accurate per se, the reading and calibration is. many cheap thermometer were printed with the temperature lines out of scale or shifted. they are also safer to use, it wasn't uncommon that the old ones broke while using them. Imagine the danger of a glass tube filled with mercury breaki…

>they are also safer to use, it wasn't uncommon that the old ones broke while using them.

>Imagine the danger of a glass tube filled with mercury breaking while measuring the temperature anally or from the mouth.

Oww, comeon, they are of course safer, but it is not like "it wasn't uncommon".

It was (and is for the - still largely glass made - gallium ones) an extremely rare occurence that a termometer broke while in use, though they often broke when they fell accidentally and - at least according to EPA - that seems like a serious hazard:

https://www.epa.gov/mercury/what-do-if-mercury-thermometer-b...

I cannot find any statistics on actual cases, but judging from this article preview:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02782...

they counted at the time 43 cases of mercury poisoning of which 7 related to broken thermometers while in use, and of these 7, only 1 was about thermometer broken while in the mouth affecting the oral mucosa.

The reported "new" one was about a lady that had her cat striking her in the face while she was using the thermometer in her mouth.

Post reply on HN