Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 April 1

= April 1 =

Medical terminology question
What is the technical term for that gross stuff that comes out of one's nose when one has the flu? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * nasal mucosa- gadfium 08:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The correct term is nasal discharge, mucosal discharge, or phlegm. The term sputum cannot be used when it applies to the nasal cavity, whereas the terms phlegm and mucosal discharge may be used when it is located anywhere within the respiratory tract. Cheers, Vitreology   talk  10:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or nasal mucus. Hopefully your nasal mucosa remains attached to the rest of your body, or else your ailment is much graver than the flu. --Lambiam 10:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. The nasal mucosa makes a secretion called mucous. There are a number of blistering conditions where the nasal mucosa may theoretically discharge (rare). Vitreology   talk  11:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mucus, not mucous. Only adjectives end in ous. 93.142.71.7 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In light of the qualified nature of the original question, I think the medically-accurate term would be "influenza associated nasal discharge"; or even - dare I say - "influenza-like illness associated nasal discharge", following the terminology guidance from CDC's Glossary of Influenza (Flu) Terms. The fine staff at CDC, including career medical researchers, strongly caution against prematurely attributing symptoms to any specific causative agent.
 * If you read MMWR every week - as we all surely do - where else would we find our weekly innoculation for ghastly statistical facts? - then you are certainly already aware that gross stuff can come out of one's nose for many reasons, and this gross stuff may or may not have any specific causative relationship with whether one tests positively for any particular influenza virus or any other virus that is making the rounds these days.  In fact, to make life more difficult for our ghastly statisticians, certain widely used research programs like the national flu surveillance program or the more recently-newsworthy Clinical Criteria for the corona virus previously-known-as nCOV-2019 specifically state some very interesting things: for example, a laboratory test that confirms the presence of coronavirus is usually only considered a valid result if-and-only-if the patient is already symptomatic - in other words, "you have the flu" in common parlance means "gross stuff is coming out of your nose and your fever is high," and specifically, not "whether you have tested positively for a specific strain of the specific virus that causes influenza, as defined by a verbose and highly-technical regulatory interpretation of a genetic analysis and virus taxonomy"; at least, it had been this way, until a few emergency regulatory changes forced a new interpretation of the exact same data on asymptomatic patients - which makes for a very fascinating knot of correlation/causation statistical confusion.  Meanwhile, the lumpenproletariat is at the gate, demanding faster widespread access to a test whose results are not yet even understood by the experts who designed it ... and clinicians, it turns out, don't actually care what genetic sequence is in the virus that you may or may-not have - because all they really care about is the number of patients, whether they have a fever and gross stuff coming out of their nose; ... and what to do about it - ergo, the prescribed treatment guidance.
 * Nimur (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The tests may more important to epidemiologists who are trying to stop the pandemic from spreading, than to clinicians who are trying to treat patients who are already sick. Both are important.  2601:640:105:1E35:C074:F68C:EEC6:9F48 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What are these engine parts? (Pictures included)
I was walking in a remote woodland and I found a rusty vehicle interior of some kind. Can anyone identify what this is and it's purpose?

--Polegåarden (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's an Overhead camshaft engine, judging by the stylized "OHC" stamped on top. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s an Opel (compare ). According to Google, the exhaust manifold part no. 90 108 040 was apparently used in the Corsa A and Kadett D, among others. Cheers ⌘  hugarheimur 20:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So then the engine is indeed an overhead camshaft engine. According to our Opel Kadett article, an Opel OHC engine was used in some models of the Opel Kadett D produced in South Africa. --Lambiam 07:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just in South Africa – the same engines were also used in German-made Opels. I think it’s a Family I engine, but I’m not an expert. Cheers ⌘  hugarheimur 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source for that, we can adjust the Opel Kadett article accordingly. --Lambiam 06:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Polegåarden, I wonder if you could say where this debris is to assist with categorising the images. Many thanks. Richard Avery (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Polegåarden's other uploads have all been in Sussex: File:Holly leaves, Upper Rapeland Wood.jpg near Horsham, File:Graylands, Horsham.jpg near Horsham, and File:Unnamed field inbetween Upper Rapeland Wood and Lower Rapeland Plantation, Old Holbrook. March 2020.jpg near Old Holbrook. Since most of them were taken within a few days of each other, we have good reason to believe that these images, as well, were taken in Sussex.  Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would be a Vauxhall Astra (a re-badged right-hand-drive version of the Kadett). Also note that it is a trasverse-mount engine; and the location of the cam drive confirms that it indeed has an overhead cam. 2606:A000:1126:28D:2D2C:2116:A139:E8FD (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)