Isolation and incubation- what am I missing??

[SLAW70s]

I’m confused about the logic behind the rules relating to the 14 day isolation period for period living with an infected person.

DD tested positive recently- symptoms started on 25th so was supposedly infectious up to 4th.

We isolated as a family up until day 14 after onset of her symptoms and have been out and about for a couple of days now. We were told by track and trace when to leave isolation.

What I’m confused about is the isolation period for family members: suppose DD broke the rules and met up with a friend on 3rd, then that person would have to isolate until 17th, yet family members who mixed with DD on 3rd are able to come out of isolation way before that.

Surely if a family member caught the virus right at the end of the infectious period then the method for calculating dates for coming out of isolation could be seriously flawed.

Thoughts?

*for people living with an infected person

The dates aren’t based on people breaking the rules and meeting others.
If a family member comes down with symptoms near the end of the period then the rest of the household all restart a new 14 day isolation (not sure about the person who originally had the infection). Depends on if tested positive I guess.

She's not infectious for 2 weeks, it can take 2 weeks for the symptoms to show up and you guys to become infectious. I don't she she needs to self isolate for 2 weeks if she's had a positive test, it's either until she gets a negative or 5 days after the symptoms disappear- but I'm in ROI so probably different rules.

But JS87 my point was that even though we followed the rules we could Still be incubating the virus at the point isolation ends.

The rule breaking scenario was just to illustrate the lack of logic and differential rules for two people both exposed to the virus on 3rd.

Sweet, the literature I’ve read says she’s infectious for 10 days ... so infectious on 3rd.

I don’t think my OP has made my point as clearly as I’d hoped!

This is why there are loads of cases, because people don’t understand the rules. If the track and trace system worked, you would all get told how long each person has to isolate for, so there is no doubts. Obviously your DD should not be out whilst isolating, so the question of how long her friend would have to isolate for should not be relevant.

Mindy, I do understand the rules. We’ve spoken to track and trace. I think the rule is flawed abs based on an assumption that others in the household will not catch the virus at the tail end of the infectious period.

Does Anyone understand my point? 🤷‍♀️

If a family member comes down with symptoms near the end of the period then the rest of the household all restart a new 14 day isolation (not sure about the person who originally had the infection). Depends on if tested positive I guess.

I'm sure you dont start a new isolation if a 2nd family member becomes ill.

I think I've attached a chart.....child 2 isolation doesnt change despite 2 further family members becoming ill....

Yes Fiz, but if I caught the virus on 3rd Then I’d still be incubating it when my own isolation (following dd’s symptom onset ended )

*sorry the word ended shouldn’t be there

People are most infectious just before and around the period the infection starts to show. You are really unlikely to catch anything from your dd on day 10 if you didnt catch it on days -2 to 3.

System is a balance bw 100% safety and what people are reasonably likely to comply with.

Thank you porcupine. That makes sense.

I also think that you are isolating for 14 days not because your DD is infectious for 14 days but because your symptoms might require 14 days to develop.
My concern is that if the second child will develop symptoms why the other family members are not isolating again? There is always a possibility that they might get it from a second child but not from the first. It depends on lifestyle and degree of interactions, and parents do less help/care/etc for older children and more for younger children.

By default the closest caregiver to a small child would probably end up isolating anyway as the parent cant go out and leave a small child at home.

I suspect it's a tradeoff. If most patients are most infective within the first day or two, and you're with the patient all along, then if you're going to catch it it's likely to be early.

You probably would transmission more with 10 days for the patient + a further 14 days from the end of that for their contacts. But that would mean a 24 day quarantine for family members. Which would increase economic harm and frustration, and reduce cooperation.

I guess it's about finding the balancing point where you prevent enough new cases to be meaningful, without locking everyone away for weeks on end.

Motorina, I agree with your interpretation. Sounds plausible. This is certainly giving me food for thought today about whether I should limit my younger dd’s activities still as she could theoretically still be incubating the virus.

Fizz that is out of date anyway as it's 10d .....
I agree op and this is what cdc say. See the bit about if you are in continuous contact
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/quarantine.html

Also surely child 2 should reisolate as they could get it from dad (different people are more contagious) and they haven't had it yet

Wow- that’s exactly what my point is, keepmydistance. CDC are obviously being more cautious than NHS track and trace!

Btw I don’t agree that dd2 should reisolate when no one else has symptoms- but thanks for the link!