The news last night was making a big deal out of a kid who recently died from the flu, subsequent to a flu test that delivered a false negative result. But would a true positive result have changed anything?
AIUI, if you go to the doctor and they determine you do have the flu, then:
A) if you’re not in crisis, they simply say “yep, it’s the flu” and send you home, with instructions to return if your symptoms worsen. or…
B) if you’re in crisis, they treat your symptoms as needed.
I get that a flu diagnosis feeds into the national statistics for how bad the flu was in any given year, but does it change anything for any individual currently suffering from it?
Maybe to get treatment sooner. I know the flu meds need to start as soon as symptoms appear to be effective.
This flu that is going around here is horrendous, so if I get sick I am going to the doc. as early as I can.
There are anti-viral medications. Last year, these were not authorized for my family until one of us tested positive for the flu. After that, when others showed symptoms they also got the medications without requiring the test (the assumption being that we all had it). I don’t know if that is the case here, but it’s possible that the child’s treatment would have been much more aggressive with a positive flu test.
The last time I had the flu, I went to urgent care and said “I think I’m coming down with the flu because…” The doctor asked me a few questions, checked my vitals, gave me a prescription for Tamiflu, and told me to come back if certain bad things happened.
I’m not really sure what would have happened differently if they ran a flu test, other than that my bill would have been much larger.
And, by the way, yes I had gotten a flu shot that year. But I still get them every year. After that experience, even if there is only a 1% chance that it will prevent the flu, it’s worth it. And they are free from the city health department.
Besides being able to prescribe Tamiflu, confirming that you have the flu more or less rules out other possibilities that might be treated differently, like a bacterial infection requiring antibiotics. I came down with what turned out to be the mother of all colds early in December but the doctors wanted to make sure that was what it was before sending me home, so I had the Q-tip shoved up my nose to be tested for the flu, had a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia, had blood work done to see if it indicated a bacterial infection, back of my throat swabbed to look for strep.
I happen to be in bed with the flu (or something like it) right now, FWIW (not much). Yes, I got vaccinated.
I’m a mechanical engineer, and I once consulted for a company that made instruments for rapid molecular assays, which can tell whether you have the flu and also which particular flu you have. The idea was that they’d install these machines in doctors’ offices so the physicians could better diagnose their patients. As part of the deal, the machines would also send anonymized test results directly to the CDC.
The idea was that the CDC would get an accurate, real-time map of which kinds of flu were spreading where. When you think about it, understanding the exact state of an ugly flu season is critical…getting a serious warning out a few days earlier could potentially save hundreds or even thousands of lives.
But the doctors weren’t having it. They were terrified of HIPPA (a US patient privacy law that, IMHO, is almost recreationally misunderstood by some medical providers here). As soon as they understood that patient data would leave their computers—even anonymized patient data— they were DONE. At least, that’s what the people at this company told me.
In theory, there’s a real (if indirect) benefit to an individual who gets a flu test: that information can help inform the vaccine for next year, and a better vaccine is in everyone’s interest.
If I actually have influenza, I wish the vaccine were more accurate this year. And if not, I’m still glad I got vaccinated.