We didn't always care to this accuracy. We just used the anal temperature and went on with our day. Then we got the ear canal thermometer for convenience and discovered that the result was not what we expected, so I got curious and started keeping detailed records...

But in the end, I want to get to the point where you are, using a rough rule of thumb. I'm just taking the evidence-based route there!

Hah! I just now realised the English word is "rectal" not "anal" but it seems my comment influenced plenty of other people to use the wrong word too!

Only an anal person would care. You’re good.

The name matters much less than making sure you don’t get the various thermometers confused.

I learned that from the move Madagascar :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8m2UqIgrE

> The exact decimal of the temperature doesn't matter too much by itself.

Indeed, this pseudo-accuracy seems pointless.

The only relevant conclusions that taking the temperature can deliver is whether, a) there is no fever, b) there is a mild fever not requiring major concern, c) there is a major fever and extra care needs to be taken. No one in their right mind would classify these differences based on sub-degree differences in temperature.

No, but it would be cool in the nerdy sense to have a dataset of average temperatures in various conditions, or at least e.g. people are within 98-99f about 60% of the time, within 97.5-99.5 about 90% of the time, within 97-101 about 97% of the time etc, as measured by X device/method at Y time of day after "average" activity level etc.

Instead of just giving temperature, a thermometer could say "there is a 70% chance that your immune system is more active than usual" etc

Of course, small additional data points like "i'm exhausted and coughing more than usual" increase the confidence of the result by orders of magnitude over just temperature...