Quarantine being reduced?

[ForkMeIAmDone]

From 14 days to a possible 7 is being considered by the government .

www.kcl.ac.uk/news/effective-test-trace-and-isolate-needs-better-communication-and-support

I’ve been fully on board so far, head down following the rules, but now I just feel like what’s the point? What I mean is I’ll still follow the rules but I’ve reached the “whatever” stage.
It feels like such a farce.

I think they are trying to help us? It’s not a farce!

There’s no right or wrong way to do this, every country in the world is struggling here

Good idea. I know several families that would comply with 7 days. But not 14.

France has been going this for a while.

I think this would be a very good idea and have been saying this should happen for weeks.

Much better that a realistic period is adhered to, rather than an aspirational one is ignored. Most people develop symptoms within 3-5 days so 14 days really is a bit disproportionate unless you're the Isle of Man and don't want a single case slipping through.

But if the incubation period is 14 then how does 7 make sense?

@ForkMeIAmDone

But if the incubation period is 14 then how does 7 make sense?

But if reducing it means more compliance then it's a good thing.

It's about reducing the spread not elimination so more people isolating for the time when most are infectious that's better than less people isolating at all.

It doesn’t make sense really. But if only 10% of people isolate for 14 days and the other 90% only bother for a couple of days, but 80% would isolate for 7 days, then its far better to use 7 days as you get more people isolating overall.

The mean incubation period is 4.5 days.

It won’t help a bit and cases will rise given the scientist say 14 for incubation.

If people are selfish enough not to comply with 14 days they aren’t suddenly going to develop a conscious if it’s seven days instead. If they cared about the spread and others they would simply comply in the first place.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

It won’t help a bit and cases will rise given the scientist say 14 for incubation.

If people are selfish enough not to comply with 14 days they aren’t suddenly going to develop a conscious if it’s seven days instead. If they cared about the spread and others they would simply comply in the first place.

I would get paid to isolate for 14 days but lots of people would struggle to pay their bills if they only get SSP. If they only lost a weeks pay rather than 2 then you can see how it would increase compliance.

"If they cared about the spread and others they would simply comply in the first place."

Life isn't simple for everyone.

I think it is all about compliance, and willingness to be tested.

The current 14 days has extremely low compliance, and people are also refusing to test (either themselves or their children) in fear of the economic hardship likely to be caused by 14 day isolation.

If 7 days would improve compliance AND willingness to test (and IF tests are turned round fast enough to make a difference - no point if tests are taking 7 days to obtain / return, because by then there is no isolation anyway), then this is probably worth it.

Keeping at 14 means the 'perfect' is being the enemy of the 'good enough'. Yes, scientifically, 14 days makes more sense BUT only if it is complied with.

France adopting this is not a great example as they had about 45,000 new cases the other day

It’s a good thing I think, the virus doesn’t have a 14 day incubation period for everyone, it was set at that because that’s the maximum. Around 80% of people have 5 days so 7 days isolation would catch most of it. People are far more likely to comply with 7 days, especially when work and education is so disruptive. It will also help the travel industry too as more would be able to travel.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

It won’t help a bit and cases will rise given the scientist say 14 for incubation.

If people are selfish enough not to comply with 14 days they aren’t suddenly going to develop a conscious if it’s seven days instead. If they cared about the spread and others they would simply comply in the first place.

Do you want to pay them their wages then?

I think the 14 days is very cautious. The studies put time from exposure to first symptoms at 5/6 days. One study estimated that 23 in 10,000 develop symtoms after 7 days. Dropping the isloation period to 7 days would be a managed risk - as those who might develop symptoms late, would already be aware of exposure and therefore likely to act quickly in terms of re-islolating.

It's worth considering and would help to alleviate the impact of C19, and help us to start to adjust to living alongside it.

I am on day 13 of isolation and I am so fed up as are my 11 and 13 years old. I think it’s a good thing as I can see why so many do t do the full time. Most people get symptoms between 3-5 days so although I realise some can develop up to 14 but even track and trace said that it’s very rare.
I am so tempted to take my two out for a walk today.

The incubation period is anything up to 21 days OP. 14 days was chosen because that covers 95% of cases. 7 days would still cover 80% of cases, and would be easier to adhere to.

Many people can’t afford 14 days. Especially if it’s going to be repeated.
There’s nothing selfish about paying your rent.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

It won’t help a bit and cases will rise given the scientist say 14 for incubation.

If people are selfish enough not to comply with 14 days they aren’t suddenly going to develop a conscious if it’s seven days instead. If they cared about the spread and others they would simply comply in the first place.

People may 'care about the spread' but they also care about earning a living.

Not everyone is a smug MNer WFH and baking organic banana bread with supplies delivered to their door by Ocado.

Ideally if enough testing was available I'd say isolate for 6 days get a test of day 6 and released from isolation on day 7 if negative. This also might help to pick up some asymptomatic infection.

14 days is over cautious. People don't stick to it!
7 is much more doable. Children wouldn't miss as much school.

So yes, great idea.

I think the q is if 7 days and then there's say a 20% chance people might be presymptomatic
On day 8 that person works in a hospital/care home
Or school where no SD or masks
Goes to a funeral or wedding

Would you want that person going into old people's homes as a carer?
There will be ex shielded people in these jobs

there's say a 20% chance people might be presymptomatic

But if only 10% of people stick to the 14 days whereas many more would stick to it for 7 days, you get a net benefit from reducing it.

@Keepdistance

I think the q is if 7 days and then there's say a 20% chance people might be presymptomatic On day 8 that person works in a hospital/care home Or school where no SD or masks Goes to a funeral or wedding

Would you want that person going into old people's homes as a carer?
There will be ex shielded people in these jobs

If compliance is low then it will spread more and more people will be around who are asymptomatic who might be going into care homes etc.

If compliance is high then even with the low percentages that are infectious after 7 days there will be less people around who have the virus.