anyone else have flu?

chiam margalit wrote:
Clisby wrote in message ...

H Schinske wrote:

wrote:



If you know you have flu - I mean actual influenza - then I agree with
you. But 102-degree fever? That's nothing. I can run a fever that
high with an ordinary cold. Believe me, I know the difference.


People have very different reactions. I don't get fevers easily, and *in me*,
anything over 101 is significant. I don't get fevers at all with plain colds.
Some people get fevers with almost anything (more often kids, but apparently it
happens to adults as well).

--Helen


I would expect, though, that adults would have a pretty good idea of
whether a fever was worrisome. 102, to me, would be insignificant.
However, I see from a later post of Marjorie's that this person *knew*
she had flu - it was confirmed by a doctor. If I knew I had flu,
there's no way I'd be traveling anywhere. If I'm going to spend 7-10
days flat on my back in bed, I'd rather do it at home, thanks. I don't
even have to think about the consequences to other people - the
consequences to me would be quite enough to keep me off the plane.


The most interesting thing about this person is, she STILL is sick as
a dog. She has been sick with flu for almost 3 weeks now, and she
still does not believe that she did anything wrong by taking herself
and her sick family on a plane 3000 miles across the US. You just
gotta wonder! :-)

Marjorie

I just cannot imagine. The two times I had flu as an adult, I was so
dizzy and disoriented it was all I could do to make it from the bed to
the bathroom, holding on to the furniture all the way. I can't even
conceive of taking a trip. They'd probably have had to wheel me onto
the plane.

Clisby

Clisby wrote in message ...
chiam margalit wrote:
Clisby wrote in message ...

H Schinske wrote:

wrote:



If you know you have flu - I mean actual influenza - then I agree with
you. But 102-degree fever? That's nothing. I can run a fever that
high with an ordinary cold. Believe me, I know the difference.


People have very different reactions. I don't get fevers easily, and *in me*,
anything over 101 is significant. I don't get fevers at all with plain colds.
Some people get fevers with almost anything (more often kids, but apparently it
happens to adults as well).

--Helen


I would expect, though, that adults would have a pretty good idea of
whether a fever was worrisome. 102, to me, would be insignificant.
However, I see from a later post of Marjorie's that this person *knew*
she had flu - it was confirmed by a doctor. If I knew I had flu,
there's no way I'd be traveling anywhere. If I'm going to spend 7-10
days flat on my back in bed, I'd rather do it at home, thanks. I don't
even have to think about the consequences to other people - the
consequences to me would be quite enough to keep me off the plane.


The most interesting thing about this person is, she STILL is sick as
a dog. She has been sick with flu for almost 3 weeks now, and she
still does not believe that she did anything wrong by taking herself
and her sick family on a plane 3000 miles across the US. You just
gotta wonder! :-)

Marjorie

I just cannot imagine. The two times I had flu as an adult, I was so
dizzy and disoriented it was all I could do to make it from the bed to
the bathroom, holding on to the furniture all the way. I can't even
conceive of taking a trip. They'd probably have had to wheel me onto
the plane.

No kidding. I've only had influenza once (as a high risk person, I've
had the shots for many many years) and that one time I literally
passed out cold in the supermarket trying to get stuff to make myself
some chicken soup. Down for the count, I woke up in an ambulance and
the only thing I remember is begging them to please let my dog come
with me on the ride. :-) I was a sorry sorry girl. The police did
rescue my dog from my car, and nicely placed him with a neighbor for a
couple of days while I was in the hospital being nebulized.

I don't get how ANYONE could possibly take a week long vacation with 3
kids and an unruly husband, all of whom are sick as well, across the
US. I just DO NOT GET IT. There isn't anyone that would make me do
this. Even if I was promised a week alone with Johnny Depp on
Anguilla, I wouldn't do it. Well.....

nope, I wouldn't. :-)

Marjorie

In article ,
Clisby wrote:

Jenn wrote:


it is pretty selfish to inflict flu on a planeload of people and on the
family being visited -- with a cold or a lesser illness most people just
suck it up and spread their germs -- but someone with a 102 temperature
is evil for flying and spreading their germs [remember one major line of
the SARS epidemic came from some dingbat who KNEW he was sick and flew
from Japan to Canada to Europe to the mideast and then home in a 36 hour
period] flu kills people -- and is highly contagious -- only a jerk
makes a long public appearance or trip with it


If you know you have flu - I mean actual influenza - then I agree with
you. But 102-degree fever? That's nothing. I can run a fever that
high with an ordinary cold. Believe me, I know the difference. I've
had real flu twice in the past 32 years. When I got it at 18, my fever
was 106+. When I had it in my early 30s, it was 105+.

Clisby


it is inconsiderate in the extreme to get on a plane with a 102 fever
which is more often associated with flu than colds -- this is how really
bad stuff gets spread around the world -- you are not the center of the
universe and y our wishes don't trump everyone else's safety

Jenn wrote in message ...

it is inconsiderate in the extreme to get on a plane with a 102 fever
which is more often associated with flu than colds -- this is how really
bad stuff gets spread around the world -- you are not the center of the
universe and y our wishes don't trump everyone else's safety

As I posted earlier, I had a high fever with an illness that wasn't
contagious via airborne transmission, so getting on the plane with that
fever didn't pose a risk to anybody else. Fevers aren't contagious,
viruses are, so making a rule based on a fever level seems too broad
to me.

I would think that if you really wanted to encourage sick people not
to fly, you'd be pushing for rules (either airline or legal) that
would allow people to reschedule airline trips without penalty if
they were running fevers or diagnosed with specific illnesses. As
long as it's as expensive as it is to reschedule a flight, people
are very unlikely to make changes to their travel plans based on
their illnesses.

Beth

In article ,
chiam margalit wrote:

I don't get how ANYONE could possibly take a week long vacation with 3
kids and an unruly husband, all of whom are sick as well, across the
US. I just DO NOT GET IT. There isn't anyone that would make me do
this.

Not that it wouldn't still be incredibly selfish, but I can imagine
someone doing this if her husband was not very good about taking care
of her and the kids when they were sick, and she was scheduled to
fly "home" to her mom or someone else who *would* take good care of
her. I'm still not sure it would be worth the cross-country flight,
but I can see why someone might want to try it. But like I said,
still incredibly selfish!

--Robyn

In article ,
(Elizabeth Reid) wrote:

Jenn wrote in message
...

it is inconsiderate in the extreme to get on a plane with a 102 fever
which is more often associated with flu than colds -- this is how really
bad stuff gets spread around the world -- you are not the center of the
universe and y our wishes don't trump everyone else's safety

As I posted earlier, I had a high fever with an illness that wasn't
contagious via airborne transmission, so getting on the plane with that
fever didn't pose a risk to anybody else. Fevers aren't contagious,
viruses are, so making a rule based on a fever level seems too broad
to me.

I would think that if you really wanted to encourage sick people not
to fly, you'd be pushing for rules (either airline or legal) that
would allow people to reschedule airline trips without penalty if
they were running fevers or diagnosed with specific illnesses. As
long as it's as expensive as it is to reschedule a flight, people
are very unlikely to make changes to their travel plans based on
their illnesses.

Beth

airlines used to do this routinely -- of course they stopped because it
was seriously abused [or so they said] everyone who wanted to reschedule
came up with a doctor's excuse

In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

In article ,
chiam margalit wrote:

I don't get how ANYONE could possibly take a week long vacation with 3
kids and an unruly husband, all of whom are sick as well, across the
US. I just DO NOT GET IT. There isn't anyone that would make me do
this.

Not that it wouldn't still be incredibly selfish, but I can imagine
someone doing this if her husband was not very good about taking care
of her and the kids when they were sick, and she was scheduled to
fly "home" to her mom or someone else who *would* take good care of
her. I'm still not sure it would be worth the cross-country flight,
but I can see why someone might want to try it. But like I said,
still incredibly selfish!

--Robyn

and don't the people flying with sick kids to a relatives have any
empathy for the family they are inflicting themselves on -- I well
remember a Thanksgiving decades ago where someone brought stomach flu to
a thanksgiving dinner and we ended up with a housefull of people sick --
and one bathroom -- and then we were sick for a week after they left

Elizabeth Reid wrote:


As I posted earlier, I had a high fever with an illness that wasn't
contagious via airborne transmission, so getting on the plane with that
fever didn't pose a risk to anybody else. Fevers aren't contagious,
viruses are, so making a rule based on a fever level seems too broad
to me.

I would agree, as someone who tends to spike relatively
high fevers for almost no reason at all ;-) If I knew I had
the flu, I can't imagine travelling (I can't imagine being
*able* to travel), but I wouldn't base it just on fever.
I don't know why I spike occasional mysterious fevers, but
I couldn't afford to drop whenever I did ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:


In article ,
chiam margalit wrote:

I don't get how ANYONE could possibly take a week long vacation with 3
kids and an unruly husband, all of whom are sick as well, across the
US. I just DO NOT GET IT. There isn't anyone that would make me do
this.

Not that it wouldn't still be incredibly selfish, but I can imagine
someone doing this if her husband was not very good about taking care
of her and the kids when they were sick, and she was scheduled to
fly "home" to her mom or someone else who *would* take good care of
her. I'm still not sure it would be worth the cross-country flight,
but I can see why someone might want to try it. But like I said,
still incredibly selfish!

--Robyn


and don't the people flying with sick kids to a relatives have any
empathy for the family they are inflicting themselves on -- I well
remember a Thanksgiving decades ago where someone brought stomach flu to
a thanksgiving dinner and we ended up with a housefull of people sick --
and one bathroom -- and then we were sick for a week after they left

That's what I was thinking - my parents are in their mid-70s, and
although they each get a flu shot every year, there's no way I'd
deliberately take a case of flu to visit elderly people who are near and
dear to me.

Clisby

In article ,
Clisby wrote:

H Schinske wrote:
wrote:


If you know you have flu - I mean actual influenza - then I agree with
you. But 102-degree fever? That's nothing. I can run a fever that
high with an ordinary cold. Believe me, I know the difference.


People have very different reactions. I don't get fevers easily, and *in
me*,
anything over 101 is significant. I don't get fevers at all with plain
colds.
Some people get fevers with almost anything (more often kids, but
apparently it
happens to adults as well).

--Helen


I would expect, though, that adults would have a pretty good idea of
whether a fever was worrisome. 102, to me, would be insignificant.
However, I see from a later post of Marjorie's that this person *knew*
she had flu - it was confirmed by a doctor. If I knew I had flu,
there's no way I'd be traveling anywhere. If I'm going to spend 7-10
days flat on my back in bed, I'd rather do it at home, thanks. I don't
even have to think about the consequences to other people - the
consequences to me would be quite enough to keep me off the plane.

Clisby


But what if the flight is to come home?

I was in Mexico last week; the day before we came home I started to
cough -- I assumed because I'd inhaled some salt water while snorkling.
However, the morning AFTER we got home, I started to feel pretty ill; I
seem to have caught a cold. If it had happened a day sooner, I probably
still would have gotten on the plane to come home -- what would have
been the alternative? I don't have enough $$ to stay for another week
or so while I got better, no one who was there with us could have stayed
WITH me so I'd have been left alone in a relatively unfamiliar place,
our tickets were not changeable, and I don't have the $$ to buy another
plane ticket. Staying in Mexico alone until I felt better would have
cost, I'm guessing, at least $2000, and left me completely alone while I
was feeling unwell.

I'm not sure what the answer is; I certainly wouldn't START a vacation
feeling ill -- but I'm not sure how people could avoid flying to come
back home when they get ill while they are away.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care