The antibiotic or antimicrobial resistance is rapidly spreading in microbes relevant to human health. Two visible major contributory factors have been the indiscriminate overuse of antimicrobials for preventing diseases in human and to enhance the productivity in agriculture sector. To mitigate the potential threat posed by post-antibiotic era, the global health stakeholders have been making extra efforts at a war footing to formulate and implement global and national plans of action. In the current article, an endeavour is made to provide a perspective to look beyond the current focus on just use of the antimicrobials. Attention has been drawn towards various obvious and not-so-obvious self-preservation infection-prevention practices in vogue from the pre-antibiotic era whose usage has been on decline in the antibiotic era for various reasons. Particularly, the practices with a clear potential to effectively decrease the spread of pathogens through contact, curtail the evolution and dissemination of the antimicrobial resistance in local environment and its introduction into the global community, should be Identified and strengthened to make them part of comprehensive hygiene and quarantine practices. Broadly, the suggestions pertaining to the personal and community hygiene including bereavement practices, isolation and quarantine of suspected pathogen carriers, and water and environment security have been made to invoke a constructive debate and discussion among various stakeholders for their evaluation and implementation to effectively delay the development of antimicrobial resistance wherever possible and disrupt its spread to pathogens.

Fever remains an integral part of the acute clinical diseases management, esp. viral, for which effective therapeutics remain desired. However, the presence of often confusing fever reduction recommendations for COVID-19 in the public domain during the pandemic, as late as 28 April 2021, seems to suggest the reduction of any ‘uncomfortable’ fever ranging from 37.8 - 39oC, as opposed to WHO fever reduction guidelines (≥39oC), urgently need attention. The confusion could percolate down into different agencies who look up to these agencies for guidance in framing their own, denying the benefits of fever to populations, and effectively undo whatever successive WHO’s guidelines have achieved in the last two decades. The existence of conflicting guidelines in public domains which are open to interpretations has consequences to public health and the healthcare infrastructure, on implementation. For controlling acute infectious diseases, esp. viral, the fever remains the most important enabler. Historically, our chief obstacles to harnessing the benefits of fever in acute clinical diseases with limited therapeutics had been: a) widespread myths about ‘fevers’ arising from a general misunderstanding of basic facts; b) presence of confusing guidelines by different agencies which are open to alternate interpretation. The article attempts to briefly indicate the benefits of fever in disease resolution, dispel myths, underline vagueness in illustrative national guidelines and the need to align them with evidence-based WHO guidelines, as it has the potential to perpetuate myths/confusion in masses leading to adverse impact on disease management – more morbidity and mortality from diseases including COVID-19.