Bloomberg: Are Temperature Checks Just Covid-Prevention Theater?

[Initech]

Suddenly, thermometers are everywhere. Reopening colleges are planning to follow students’ temperatures. The New York Stock Exchange won’t let a member with a fever onto the floor. At my doctor’s office the other day, my temperature was taken both at the entrance and minutes later in the examination room, before I could receive the required injection that had brought me out of shelter.

Measuring the body’s heat has become the latest solution to the how-to-open-in-a-pandemic conundrum. I understand, and even share, the determination to get things moving again. But I worry that our new enthusiasm for constant temperature-taking might turn out to be mainly security theater, an effort to make us feel better without regard to whether we're actually safer. The reasons for my uneasiness are several.

For one thing, we’re not sure what fever to look for. In the words of Consumer Reports, “scientists have not identified a specific fever pattern tied to this disease.” Most of those who have both Covid-19 and a fever will be displaying other symptoms too; in other words, they’ll be easy to spot. But the significant number of infected people who are asymptomatic — perhaps 35% of all coronavirus patients, according to the CDC — likely won’t have a fever at all. So temperature screening will miss a lot of carriers.

Moreover, studies of the relationship between fever and Covid-19 are all over the map. According to a literature review released in April by the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, fever is present in between 82 and 87 percent of mild or moderate cases of Covid-19. On the other hand, one study of Covid-19 patients sick enough to be admitted to hospitals found that only 30 percent presented with fever. Other studies have found much higher figures, but that's the point: We don't know.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-28/coronavirus-temperature-checks-can-miss-feverless-covid-cases?sref=2o0rZsF1&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=view&utm_medium=social

Some very interesting insights. I feel like it could be the COVID equivalent of the 5 oz rule going through airport security - just how much crap are we willing to put up with in the name of "safety"?

[Wounded Bear]

1. Not totally...

although, by the time someone "fails" a random temp check it is likely they've already infected their quota of others.

We can't use the Chinese method, where if you fail a temp check, they haul you away into enforced quarantine for two weeks, or you get hospitalized or something. But by not allowing those with high fevers into your establishment, you defend your employees and customers.

I'd say it's more than just a "band aid" but not a panacea by any means. At the very least, it would deter people who know they have symptoms from attempting to go out and mingle.

There is no single solutions, only a range of small things like temp checks.

[Initech]

3. But in the rest of the article there was this interesting bit of information:

Here’s another problem: We don’t agree on what a fever is. Oh, there are formal definitions. Both CDC and WHO say that a person has a fever when temperature rises above 100.4 degrees Farenheit. But there’s long been disagreement within the medical profession over whether that’s the right number. The CDC-WHO definition stems from research by the pioneering German physician Carl August Wunderlich ... published in 1868. It’s Wunderlich, too, whose 19th-century data was used to establish 98.6 as normal body temperature. 1 We now know, however, that normal body temperature is closer to 97.5 degrees — and in many people, even lower. If the newer number is correct, then a patient with a temperature of, say, 99.3 — well within the “old” normal range — might well be febrile. Should we keep that person out of the shopping mall?

So they're using nearly 200 year old studies to determine what a fever really is, and on top of that, the temperature guns being used aren't exactly what one would call accurate, and this could lead to some serious invasion of privacy lawsuits. On top of that:

Link to tweet

So add inaccurate thermometers plus some flawed screening processes, and the fact that those who are infected with COVID are easier to spot than those that aren't, and you have the potential for a lot of things to go very wrong very quickly.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Yeah, I typically run closer to 97.0 than the "normal" range...

so 98.6 for me is borderline "fever."

I don't disagree that it is an inaccurate and incomplete way to screen, I'm just saying that just like masks, it's a tool to use.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

10. If the test is something more strong, like skunk spray...

... then I'll be a false positive!

I can't smell skunk! (It's true for about 0.1% of the population.)

There's a bunch of other stuff that I WISH I couldn't smell, but I'm supposedly "blessed" regarding skunk spray.

[Claustrum]

2. While it might be theater, I think it does help in certain cases

For example, the "great clip" hairdresser incident, the temperature check could have deter the hairdresser with symptoms to work those days and prevented him as a possibility of being a super-spreader.

Personally, I just don't believe the covidiots to self monitor and adhere to the rules. So at least the temperature check is doing something.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Test, trace, isolate. Thermometers don't stop the spread.

A thermometer tells you who has a fever. It won't tell you how many people that feverish person might have infected before getting a fever. It won't tell you who is asymptomatic and spreading the virus. It won't tell you who is on the way to getting a fever, but is infectious without one.

Temperature checks are not a substitute for proper testing, tracing and isolating.

[DrToast]

5. Another article that suggests that if something isn't foolproof it's not worth doing

Look, it's not going to catch everyone. We know that. But there are plenty of people with fevers that are fully symptomatic and are willing to walk around like nothing is wrong. At least we can catch those people.

[Alex4Martinez]

9. Exactly. This is such a common logical fallacy.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

6. Wear a mask, then get checked if you have a high temp.

That's how I would manage it, especially since there's evidence that the worst viral shedding happens just before symptoms appear.

(Not to mention totally asymptomatic cases.)

[helpisontheway]

7. I think you could miss a lot of people that have the virus.

Some people are asymptomatic. Others have symptoms but no fever.

[liberalmuse]

11. I have a neighbor who works in a care facility.

She gets a temperature check every day before going in, however, she told me she is not social distancing and she's had large parties at her house.

At my grandma's doctor's office, they won't let anyone in with a temperature over 104 F or higher. Did they not read the symptoms? Thankfully my grandma will not go to her doctor's office unless absolutely necessary.

Most people with Coronavirus present a low grade fever and some no fever at all. In other words, yes, this is theatre in most cases.

[Initech]

12. Yeah my brother is an ER doctor and he's treated COVID patients.

He's said that the frequent temperature checks are not the way we should be doing things. And that the forehead temperature guns are grossly inaccurate. He also said the same thing as the article that the in-ear thermometers are the far more accurate way to record body temperature.

This is just way more unnecessary surveillance, IMO.