To the Editor:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, disrupted human life as we know it and brought us to a standstill in a matter of months. Considering fever is one of the earliest and most common symptoms, temperature-based screening promptly became the focus for identifying infected cases and for checking the spread of the virus. This was, and still is, being performed using noncontact infrared thermometers and/or thermal scanners at entry/exit points (eg, airports) and doorways to different establishments such as hospitals, workplaces, grocery stores, and restaurants. This was meant to be applied as part of a composite program in combination with self-reporting of relevant symptoms, contact, and travel history. The idea was that people who have a rise in body temperature be treated as a suspected case of COVID-19 and be isolated until definite test results are obtained.Per contra, what seemed like a simple yet effective measure to identify cases then has now transpired to be a futile endeavor. More than a year into the pandemic, we now know that almost half the patients with COVID-19 do not have fever. Consequently, asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases might go undetected. Among cases that present with fever, the use of antipyretic drugs (which is oftentimes not self-reported) can result in false-negative results. Furthermore, readings obtained with these devices are influenced by a myriad of factors. These include the person’s age, sex and race, alcohol consumption, application of cosmetics, and physical activity preceding measurement. Environmental factors such as subject-to-sensor distance, ambient temperature, and humidity also affect the readings. Such factors may lead to an underestimation of febrile cases, leading to a false sense of security; conversely, it may also overestimate the number of febrile patients generating unnecessary further testing, increased cost, and undue stress for individuals and authorities involved.Nowadays, temperature checks have come to be a daily ritual for many of us. Although not particularly resource intensive, the propensity to miss a substantial proportion of the cases and the multitude of variables that could render the results unreliable compel us to consider the cost-benefit of this screening measure. A review of the evidence of noncontact thermal screening for identifying cases of COVID-19 concluded that thermal screening is ineffective in limiting the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. With little discernible benefit, it begs the question: Why do we allow thermal screening to be commonplace?