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

Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#141

Post by kineticdaffodil »

tarsinge wrote: post #120
TeMPOraL wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people go overboard with this, though, like taking flu reduction medicine with every single cold or using medication to go to work sick. American media seems especially accepting of people taking "flu medicine" over rest and recovery. This is not specific to America; it's a thing in the entire Western world, and probably beyond. Because it's not like we have any other choice. There is no slack in the system…

But flu isn’t just a cold, it’s a serious disease. If they are sick to the point they have fever then they can’t really afford to not rest as it has a cost in the form of longer health debt. And even short term, by letting the fever run and resting and being 100% operational can be more productive than being a zombie on medications for weeks.

[dead]

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#142

Post by [deleted] »

Amezarak wrote: post #126
bee_rider wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, as others have pointed out. Although, we’re very unusual humans in the grand scheme of things. So using medication might be reasonable. The brain might start taking damage around 104F. That was probably a good tradeoff for a peasant farmer (our ancestors, on average). Most of us nowadays just think for a living, not such a good tradeoff for us. Take the fever suppressant, what’s the worst that’ll happen if you…

You do not get brain damage from fever. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/conditions/a-z/fever---myth...

[deleted]

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#143

Post by jeroenhd »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #128
benterix wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people can't afford to have more than a few sick days in a year I believe it's true in the USA, but not necessarily in Europe. It's quite normal that you have two infections a year, plus sometimes your kid catches something at a completely different time, so the law protects you in these situations.

Yes, but there's what the law says, and there's process, and there's expectations. You can't just take a legal sick day each time you have a runny nose (good luck finding a doctor that fast), and even if you could, you'd quickly stand out. "Two infections a year" is an average for adults who power through remaining ones with painkillers and cough meds; if they didn't, we'd be talking 5+, probably closer to 10 if they…

Sounds like you have a pretty terrible employer. Of course there's an expectation that you're not taking sick leave for every minor cough or sniffle, but "powering through" infections is pretty absurd to expect from your employees.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#144

Post by torben-friis »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #131
torben-friis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people can't afford to have more than a few sick days in a year Sick days are unlimited in my country (and of course don’t count as vacation or similar). I think this is relatively standard for European countries, though not 100% sure.

They may be on paper, but I can't imagine taking one every time you have a runny nose or a sore throat. Everyone from your employer to social insurance[0] will start looking at you funny. It's just unexpected, even though it's how you're supposed to be handling infectious diseases to prevent spread. -- [0] - Or whoever is backing the free healthcare in your country.

Yes, that much is true. Remote working for those in between cases is accepted, but it does reduce the practice to the luckier subset of office workers.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#145

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mikkupikku wrote: post #119
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“They want us to fear birds” is wild man

They've been beating the bird flu drum for years, and why? Suppose bird flu is a real threat, what is the public meant to do about it? Stop eating birds? There is no pragmatic course of action anybody but highly specialized scientists can take to counter this alleged threat, and yet they keep beating the war drum, trying to make everybody afraid. Fear is the point.

> what is the public meant to do about it?

By this logic, any coverage of international relations is also a conspiracy.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#146

Post by loeg »

andsoitis wrote: post #79
parineum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ultra processing" is corollary to unhealthy food, not causal. It's not the ultra processing that makes it unhealthy. That's the crux of this disagreement. Assuming the relationship and then assuming the next step that the antitheses must be true. Unprocessed foods aren't inherently healthy and ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

> ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy …but they are statistically associated with worse health outcomes. Their nutrient profile, additives’ effects on eating behavior, and how human metabolism responds to engineered foods lead to harm for humans.

Parent comment is begging you to understand that correlation is not causation. That you infer it to imply causation leaves you less well-informed about the world.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#147

Post by amypetrik8 »

binary132 wrote: post #50

Huh. I don’t know if I’m picking up what they’re putting down here, but it kind of sounds like suppressing fever e.g. with Tylenol would actually be bad for (normal) flu progression.

kind of sounds like suppressing fever e.g. with Tylenol would actually be bad for (normal) flu progression.

you're just the tip of the iceberg my friend - did you know "horse dewormer" ivermectin has long been given to humans - for decades - to treat parasitic infections?

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#148

Post by nikolay »

xorcist wrote: post #135
sph wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fever is not essential to the immune system Nonsense. From Wikipedia: Fever is thought to contribute to host defense, as the reproduction of pathogens with strict temperature requirements can be hindered, and the rates of some important immunological reactions are increased by temperature. Fever has been described in teaching texts as assisting the healing process in various ways, including: - increased mobilit…

> Fever makes your immune system work better, Right. But it's not essential to the immune system. The immune system doesn't shut down completely just because you temporarily bring the fever down. It's one thing to avoid overusing painkillers, and while I personally can appreciate that sentiment, over the counter painkillers are pretty well tested and you should not be afraid to use them, without reasonable limits. De…

It's a numbers game - even if you kill only a part of the pathogen with fever, it actually makes a big difference in the end, since in the initial phase it grows exponentially. Also, another indirect benefit is that when you have a fever, you tend to rest more rather than pretending everything is rosy, and when your immune system works best, it is when you sleep. In the States, I've seen many irresponsible sick people who go to work and take Tylenol so that they can cope better at work, essentially spreading the disease.

In many cultures, instead of giving you Paracetamol/Acetaminophen at the onset of fever, they would actually warm you up to give it a boost.

I know, stoicism is gone - people can't tolerate any pain, any discomfort, any trouble nowadays.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#149

Post by parineum »

andsoitis wrote: post #79
parineum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ultra processing" is corollary to unhealthy food, not causal. It's not the ultra processing that makes it unhealthy. That's the crux of this disagreement. Assuming the relationship and then assuming the next step that the antitheses must be true. Unprocessed foods aren't inherently healthy and ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

> ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy …but they are statistically associated with worse health outcomes. Their nutrient profile, additives’ effects on eating behavior, and how human metabolism responds to engineered foods lead to harm for humans.

There are foods which are processed to add nutrients.

Imagine I took raw sugar cane then added vitamin d, calcium, vitamin c and some electrolytes to make a sports drink.

Re: Bird flu viruses are resistant to fever, making them a major threat to humans

#150

Post by anonymouskimmer »

goalieca wrote: post #23
gerdesj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a vaccine for one strain: H5N1. I'm sure birds have many more strains and variants of virus. I'm sure a proper virologist can dive in here ... I think people assume that a fever is caused by an infection but my understanding is that a fever is a response to the infection. The body raises its temperature deliberately to destroy a viral infection, even though it is unpleasant, as well as deploying the other defe…

Everyone pops a Tylenol/advil when they get a fever. Can’t be that bad.

Importantly everyone is popping a fever reducer only after the fever has already started. Here, with the avian flus, the fever effectively never gets a chance to start.

And it's one thing to pop a fever reducer when you already have antibodies from prior exposure or immunization (which vulnerable groups tend to be in large enough numbers). It's another thing to pop it when you don't.

Post reply on HN