14 days is just too long

[Jourdain11]

I understand the reason why the quarantine period was increased, but at the same time, I wonder if compliance wouldn't be much better if it was 7 days (or even 10) rather than 14.

Apparently compliance is only at about 18% - so, if you had a 7 day quarantine instead and compliance was say, 50%, surely the overall impact of quarantining would be better?

14 days is long - if your primary-age child is put into quarantine that's 2 weeks that a parent has to take off work. 2 weeks that a student has to stay cooped up in their room in halls. 2 weeks that an asymptomatic person who is feeling perfectly healthy and well has to sit inside the 4 walls of their home and can't take any exercise (which can't be good for health...).

I just wonder if a shorter quarantine period would be seen as more manageable, and therefore more people would actually make an effort to manage it.

Yes, of course I do. But I meant that it is not healthy for that individual.

@Bupkis

It would be better if people just followed the fucking rules!

I’m going to have this printed on a t-shirt. And a hat.

Ridiculous post. The incubation period is what it is, we haven't randomly declared an arbitrary length of time.

April through July I was more or less isolating indoors. No possibility to go for walks outside, no in-person contact with people from outside the home at all, no trips to he supermarket to pick up a loaf of bread. I wasn't as strict on it as some, but I did as much as possible simply because it was a necessity. And God, was it grim and depressing! As someone who has actually done it, I can understand why others don't want to.

@Jourdain11

Yes, of course I do. But I meant that it is not healthy for that individual.

It’s not insurmountable though is it?

@StephenKong

Ridiculous post. The incubation period is what it is, we haven't randomly declared an arbitrary length of time.

Well, to start with it was 10... and then 7... and now 14. There must be an "average" - there are always going to be outliers and exceptions. And I bet that the average incubation period isn't 14 days.

Jourdain11 Fri 25-Sep-20 13:56:44

Yes, of course I do. But I meant that it is not healthy for that individual.

And even less healthy for the dozens that person could potentially infect while they go swanning round ignoring the effect they have on the lives of others.

@Jourdain11

April through July I was more or less isolating indoors. No possibility to go for walks outside, no in-person contact with people from outside the home at all, no trips to he supermarket to pick up a loaf of bread. I wasn't as strict on it as some, but I did as much as possible simply because it was a necessity. And God, was it grim and depressing! As someone who has actually done it, I can understand why others don't want to.

But no one is asking for four months isolation. 14 days.

You talk like no one else has any comprehension of what it’s like or what it means.

I never said that.

And I bet that the average incubation period isn't 14 days

What do you think it is then and based on what evidence?

Well, to start with it was 10... and then 7... and now 14.

You're confusing two different things.

If you have symptoms or a positive test, the isolation period used to be 7 days and is now 10 days.

If you are a contact, the isolation period is 14 days and always has been.

Other countries call the isolation period for contacts 'quarantine' but we only really use that word for people isolating on arrival to the UK. I think it would be less confusing if we used the word quarantine for contacts as well -

Isolate for 10 days if you have symptoms or a positive test.
Quarantine for 14 days if you are identified as a contact, or on arrival in the UK.

@StephenKong

Ridiculous post. The incubation period is what it is, we haven't randomly declared an arbitrary length of time.

It's not a ridiculous post at all, it's a very sensible question the OP is posing. If say 90% people develop symptoms in 5 days and 10% take up to 14 days. Then if the quarantine period was 7 days and people complied with it as it's reasonable, we could catch 90% cases. Instead we could have 14 day period (to catch those extra 10% cases) but then only 50% comply, this is actually a worse situation to be in.

I have a ĺittle idea of how it is.
We shielded ds at home from middle of March to August.
Ds and I didn't go out at all apart from the garden for the whole time.
8 days after going back to school, we had to self isolate as ds had symptoms.
This will probably happen many more times over the Winter.

The median incubation time is 5.1 days, the mean is 5.8 days. 95% of people will have incubated by 11.7 days. So I would agree that a slightly shorter quarantine, (maybe 10-12 days) may be appropriate if it was more likely to be followed. It's a tricky balance.

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e039652

@StephenKong

Ridiculous post. The incubation period is what it is, we haven't randomly declared an arbitrary length of time.

It's not necessarily ridiculous, the longest incubation is 14 days not the standard foe everyone.

If you could get 75% (say) compliance with a 10 day isolation that catches 95% (again an estimate) that's better then only getting 50% to stick rigidly to the full 14 days.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has researched the behavioural science aspects to work out what length of isolation catches the most cases.

I see @cathyandclare was typing something along the same lines at the same time as me.

Mummabeary Thank you! That's exactly the point I'm trying to suggest, but you explained it much better than me.

Let's say that with a shorter quarantine / isolation period, compliance was 75%. It would still be protecting people more effectively than having a longer stipulated period to catch the "outliers" and ending up with a very, very low rate of compliance.

Great minds think alike @PleasantVille!

If the incubation period was 14 days as an outlier we would have pretty much stamped it out with the spring lockdown.

These numbers haven’t been pulled out of thin air and will account for shorter and longer incubation periods and contagion risks as variables. It won’t be perfect but it will the ones that show the best results.

The government would be better putting pressure on employers to adhere to supporting their staff to abide by isolation periods than they would messing about with the duration.

@PleasantVille @cathyandclare
Thank you - I'm glad that the point I'm trying to make hasn't been totally mangled by my poor explanation!

@Cornettoninja

If the incubation period was 14 days as an outlier we would have pretty much stamped it out with the spring lockdown.

These numbers haven’t been pulled out of thin air and will account for shorter and longer incubation periods and contagion risks as variables. It won’t be perfect but it will the ones that show the best results.

The government would be better putting pressure on employers to adhere to supporting their staff to abide by isolation periods than they would messing about with the duration.

That's not really true though, because many people still had to go to work, and people were still going out for things like shopping and exercise. And many people weren't totally compliant.

[quote cathyandclare]The median incubation time is 5.1 days, the mean is 5.8 days. 95% of people will have incubated by 11.7 days. So I would agree that a slightly shorter quarantine, (maybe 10-12 days) may be appropriate if it was more likely to be followed. It's a tricky balance.

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e039652[/quote]
Good post and agree it’s worth asking what the breakdown is. 14 days must be the longer period.

France is now 7

France is now 7

Really? That would explain a lot.

I understand the point you are making OP but I think it would be better to first try adequate support for people asked to isolate.

@Jourdain11

Yes, of course I do. But I meant that it is not healthy for that individual.

My God, the selfishness. You're seriously advocating that an asymptomatic person infected with covid should be able to go out and spread it to all and sundry, potentially killing someone.

Cop the fuck on.