Would you let yourself be exposed to the flu for $3500?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I wouldn’t do it for any amount of money. I’ve had the flu twice (it’s NOTHING like a cold) and I hope to never go through it again.

I had H1N1 ten years or so ago, and it was the worst I’ve ever felt in my life. It was bad enough that I thought at several points that I should have gone to the ER, but I didn’t even have the energy to pick up the phone. A cardiologist friend told me later that I was in more danger than I had realized, most likely. That strain, that year was devastating to young healthy people.

22

I’ve lived through dengue fever. Surely flu however defined can’t be as bad as that.

23

If you survived dengue but influenza kills you, I suspect you’d consider it worse. And otherwise healthy people do die of influenza, though it’s uncommon. But it’s not rare.

Look, everything we do has some sort of risk associated with it; we weigh that against potential reward. But understand what the the real risks are, whenever you can. Then make an informed decision. To me, $3500 is NOT worth the risks inherent in an influenza infection.

24

Absolutely. I’ve had the flu multiple times in my life. It is no big deal. A week of lying around in bed would easily be worth it for $3,500.

25

In this thread, multiple posters have mentioned the risk of death. But when nurses are observing you 24/7, you are in much safer position than lying at your home.

26

Great, so if you come down with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) as a complication of your influenza, you’ll get on a respirator that much quicker, so your survival rate is maybe as high as 50% instead of 10% for those who have delayed interventions.

27

I’ve had two serious flu cases; close to the hospital but not quite. But what the heck ------- it could be fun and the money isn’t terrible so sign me up.

28

Now, no. Earlier in my life when my health was better and I needed the money more, sure.

29

I would have tended toward yes until reading an actual doctor saying it’s not worth it. Knowing my luck I’d be one of the lucky few who dies.

30

What gives me pause is that they’re only offering ten days of care. Since when is a flu over that quickly? That might get you through the worst of it, but you’d still have a couple of weeks of misery without the nursing.

31

Uh, no. I’m not going to risk destroying my body and being miserable for two weeks so I can have a pay cut, TYVM.

32

Nope. Like some of the others, I’ve had the “real” flu. A higher fever that wouldn’t break for days, the respiratory problems that would have killed someone less healthy than I was, and worst of all, that feeling of weakness that lasted a whole lot longer than 10 days.

33

It sounds intriguing but, no thanks. My husband had a very bad case this past winter and I don’t know if I came down with a touch of it or something else but it sucked. I haven’t had the actual flu in years, but it’s not worth it.

34

Hell no. They have to pay me more than that to get me to come to work, and that is for only 8-hrs per day.

Spread out over 24-hours, you are not just going to be sick during the day, $350 works out to only $14.58/hr.

35

I might have when I was younger. No way now. I had a mild case of the flu a few years ago when the vaccine happened to be less effective year and, no I would not want to repeat that. Maybe if the offered to pay for the funeral.

36

Not a chance, I’ve had flu three times and it is a horror show. It is nothing like a cold. If you think you’ve had it and would voluntarily choose to have it again then I’d have to seriously doubt whether you’ve actually had the real deal.

37

The article (and the accompanying link) aren’t that clear. It says you’re quarantined for 10 days, but you aren’t allowed to leave until you test negative for the flu for 2 days. So maybe it’s 10 days minimum?

38

Actually, at least with Spanish Flu, the stronger immune systems were the liability. Something about the immune system’s “nuclear solution” wherein tissue surrounding the concentrated virus is destroyed. Which is bad if that happens to be your lungs and you are able to mount a particularly vigorous attack.

39

It must be nice being so rich that you have no idea how the other 90% lives.

There are millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of Americans who would do virtually anything for a job that paid that much.

40

Hell no.

That’s not a terrible payday for dealing with the discomfort of sickness for 10 days if that’s all it were (I’m imagining I could work remotely for at least part of it. Hmm, I wonder how the sick leave policy would treat voluntarily exposing oneself to infectious agents…)

But the flu kills people. CDC says 1.6 deaths per 100,000 population. According to WebMD, 5-20% of the US gets the flu each year, so multiply by something between 20 and 5. Let’s say 10. So 16 deaths per 100,000 people who get the flu. But generally people get the flu just once a year. If the flu lasts 10 days, then the annualized death rate for the job of “having the flu” is 35 times that. Now you’re up to 560 deaths per 100,000. That’s a rate 4 times as bad as the most dangerous US-based job, fisherman. And of course if the flu doesn’t kill you, it still might leave you with chronic medical problems.

After these calculations, I’ve decided to modify my answer.

Fuck no.