Would you self isolate?

[janemaster]

The advice is to self isolate if you have travelled from certain areas abroad, even if you have no symptoms. We know in other countries that not everyone has followed this advice.
So be honest, if you had no symptoms but were told to self isolate for 2 weeks in the house, would you? This would mean not leaving the house at all and staying in a separate room from anyone else living in your house.

YABU - No I would not
YANBU - Yes I would

Nope two separate points which you have conflated into one. Very low paid disabled person here who couldn't pay the rent without two weeks wages. I just happen to think that rent arrears or losing my property isn't comparable to someone else losing their life #stickyourprivilegeup
yourarseandvaluelifeovermoney

But if I take what you are saying I am going to have to make my son homeless as well, where exactly do you draw the line?

But if I take what you are saying I am going to have to make my son homeless as well, where exactly do you draw the line?

That would be terrible. But imagine your son was likely to die if he came into contact with someone who didn't self isolate. And he got ill and died. Would you think they had done that right thing to prioritise their housing issues? I suspect that most people would be incensed.

When I said what has happened to people, I was meaning because people seem to think that whatever makes life manageable for them is the "right" thing to do. But self isolation isn't just a "nice idea" that we should "try" to do. It would be something that we "have" to do. And if people don't, then I truly hope they don't dare to complain when someone with undiagnosed coronavirus passed the virus onto their elderly and frail mother or their immune-compromised kids. After all, the undiagnosed person didn't self isolate because they needed to pay their electric bill. Still, people's partners with COPD will understand that in their dying hours, won't rhey?

No I wouldn't. 2 weeks off work means I can't afford my rent/food etc. That's half a month of pay... Plus I would probably lose my job if I had 2 entire weeks off!

SirChing really!? It's 'putting money first' to not want to become homeless which is also extremely dangerous? Have you ever been homeless?

Like others, we'd have to isolate as a family group. It would be impossible to isolate one person in the house separate from others.

We got a Tesco delivery yesterday and the driver told us they'd been issued bags to put the shopping in and leave it on the doorstep if needed so we'd get food and medicine that way (obviously onjy useful until the delivery drivers are also self-isolating!)

But their job responsibility is to get a signed receipt of some sort. So anyone SI would need to contact HO.

They've been told to write "Covid-19" in the signature box, apparently (Tesco, anyway).

I don’t understand why some posters think running would be allowed, or that because they live rurally they could go for walks?! Do people not understand the meaning of isolation!

@h3av3n Yes. A long time ago. It was awful and scary. Noone died as a result though.

So become homeless, lose your kids, lose your job and have your life ruined... just in case you have corona. I live in an affected area, I guess I should stay at home in case I've been in contact with it. Hmm....

@h3av3n ruined lives can be rebuilt. Dead lives can't. Noone wants to go into quarantine, but if the government guidelines were to do so, I wouldn't feel I was too special for those rules to apply to me.

And people are going into quarantine as a result of being on holiday. If People can't afford the possibility of being in quarantine for two weeks after, then maybe they simply don't go? Perhaps instead of putting money aside for holidays and holiday spending money, using that money to build up a buffer in case someone can't work for two weeks would be a better plan.

It isn't compulsory to go away. If you can't go away AND afford to quarantine as a possible consequence, then excuse me for having little sympathy if people go anyway and then decide they can't afford to go into quarantine. That is utter selfishness and a total lack of social responsibility.

If an immune suppressed member of my family caught coronavirus and died from a person ignoring quarantine, they would be permanently skint as, if I knew who it was, I would sue the arse off them.

I would imagine that if quarantine does become extensively needed, then laws will be pushed through making it illegal not to adhere. Good! Let's see how many idiots decide to still go on holiday and go back to work when they shouldn't, if they gave a criminal record.

This is the government that doesn’t want to stay part of the EWRS and that will cost lives, ironically probably more likely their own voters due to age. Then you want others to follow government guidelines, the government have shown repeatedly they don’t give a shit

Depressingly inevitable that the government can find billions for its pet projects like brexit but not the thousands it needs to allow people to afford to self isolate. Stopping the disease with effective isolation policies would save so much money in the long run. An effective government would appreciate the need to invest to save in the long term.

@ivykaty44 which is why people who voted for the shitbags baffle me. But as they have been elected and make the laws, we have to follow them. Sadly, no-one takes them to task much for deviating from the law, but they sure as shit will take us to task if we do.

Shame we can't offer up BoJo as a sacrifice to the virus gods!

@gamerwidow completely agree.

Yes, DP and myself are currently self-isolating since he came back from Northern Italy last week. He is able to work remotely. We'd both feel awful if he came down with it and others were infected because he hadn't stayed home.

But as they have been elected and make the laws, we have to follow them.

We don’t have to follow the Tory government, and they are unlike to make laws to protect the citizens of the U.K.

Nobody should face financial hardship, risk homelessness etc as a result of following advice to self isolate.

Blame the government - not people who are desperately trying to keep a roof over theirs and their children's heads. Homelessness is seriously dangerous to health and shortens life expectancy.

Sorry but I would absolutely prioritise my family and their safety and security over others. Especially if we're talking about self isolation with zero symptoms.

Not destroying my life is worth a damn sight more than the death of a stranger

To me at least and that is what will drive my decisions

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. People are going on holiday to the Far East because they can't get their money back via insurance and can't bear to waste a few thousand. So they are literally valuing their own lives as less important than the price of their holiday.

@SirChing

You might be interest to read the WHO’s advice in this regard on the limited use of travel restrictions . It’s quite interesting

Recommendations for international traffic

WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COIVD-19 outbreaks.

In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.

Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.

Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact

The problem is if its allowed to run rampant and people don't self isolate it might not a stranger who dies. Anyone can be unlucky and have an atypical serious reaction to flu or any other disease. Public health is your health too, you and your family are at as much risk as anyone else.
It is an impossible choice some people are faced with and the government need to either compel employers to pay sick pay by law to those self isolating or cover the wages if they force anyone to isolate. I've not seen plans to do either.

@ACautionaryTale

Hmm - I am beginning to see the logic of the North Korea approach - ie where in the first reported case (allegedly), when the man breached quarantine to visit public baths, he was shot dead.

The reality is that if the government directs self isolation, it will have either to direct employers to pay for it or step in itself. Not thoughfor people who self isolate in the absence of there being any recommendation to do so - that’s essentially 2 weeks’ unauthorised absence

Snap, @gamerwidow!

I would but I know many people who just cannot afford 2 weeks without pay. I really would not blame someone without symptoms for not risking their job/home/etc in these circumstances.

no idea what the solution would be but I don't think it's as simple as that.