6 ms·

Regarding 3) - should they quarantine regardless or just if the get ill?

enitihas 6y ago
They should quarantine regardless, since asymptomatic people are also spreaders. Ill people sre anyways getting quarantined even without any tracing.
chosenbreed37 6y ago
> Regarding 3) - should they quarantine regardless or just if the get ill? I guess they have to quarantine. Not only them but anybody else that came into contact with and so and so forth :-)
feral 6y ago
Probably. I would say that depends on the overall strategy. If pre-symptomatic people infecting others is a big issue, then it's probably worth the cost of quarantining folks who display no symptoms until you are sure they aren't sick. Obviously that means you quarantine a lot of people who don't later get sick. That sounds draconian, but its a lot better than lockdowns.
fragmede 6y ago
It it depends on the pandemic. The reason COVID-19 has upended the world is that our usual metric "if they get ill" doesn't work. It doesn't work in this case, because many people with the virus show no signs while they are contagious, with some (many?) never showing signs they were ever sick. Worse, because COVID-19 is new, we are still learning details about it performs. The current recommendation to quarantine for 14-days is based on what little we do know - which is that people exposed to the virus may show no symptoms for 14-days. There are cases of it taking more time, and there are also cases of it taking shorter time, but 14-days is what's currently recommended. Because we're still learning how the virus performs, testing is far from foolproof. A test that says negative for the virus just means that the test says negative. The swap could have missed the virus even though a person has it. Thus, if reopening is to avoid a second wave of cases, they must quarantine until either the 14-days are up (and even then), or we (humanity) learn enough more and are able to give tests that are more widely trusted. "Quarantine regardless" is pejorative - it makes it sound like quarantine is just for the sake of it. With more knowledge and better technology, the 14-days could possibly be reduced, but the quarantine is one of the oldest medical technologies we have - an empirical test for "do you have the virus".
moultano 6y ago
Yes, they should quarantine until they're able to get a test and test negative. We have a lot of evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread.
arrrg 6y ago
You are infectious about 1-2 days before the onset of symptoms. Actually, at the onset of symptoms many are already getting less infectious. That’s why this one’s hard to catch up with. You need to be very quick when contact tracing. So, yeah, absolutely, you should quarantine after contact with a known infected person, no matter whether you have symptoms or not.
joshuamorton 6y ago
They should quarantine until tested. The idea is that with mild social distancing + contact tracing + good testing infra, you can track virus spread faster than the virus actually spreads, keeping outbreaks localized.

They should quarantine regardless, since asymptomatic people are also spreaders. Ill people sre anyways getting quarantined even without any tracing.

chosenbreed37 6y ago

> Regarding 3) - should they quarantine regardless or just if the get ill? I guess they have to quarantine. Not only them but anybody else that came into contact with and so and so forth :-)

feral 6y ago

Probably. I would say that depends on the overall strategy. If pre-symptomatic people infecting others is a big issue, then it's probably worth the cost of quarantining folks who display no symptoms until you are sure they aren't sick. Obviously that means you quarantine a lot of people who don't later get sick. That sounds draconian, but its a lot better than lockdowns.

fragmede 6y ago

It it depends on the pandemic. The reason COVID-19 has upended the world is that our usual metric "if they get ill" doesn't work. It doesn't work in this case, because many people with the virus show no signs while they are contagious, with some (many?) never showing signs they were ever sick. Worse, because COVID-19 is new, we are still learning details about it performs. The current recommendation to quarantine for 14-days is based on what little we do know - which is that people exposed to the virus may show no symptoms for 14-days. There are cases of it taking more time, and there are also cases of it taking shorter time, but 14-days is what's currently recommended. Because we're still learning how the virus performs, testing is far from foolproof. A test that says negative for the virus just means that the test says negative. The swap could have missed the virus even though a person has it. Thus, if reopening is to avoid a second wave of cases, they must quarantine until either the 14-days are up (and even then), or we (humanity) learn enough more and are able to give tests that are more widely trusted. "Quarantine regardless" is pejorative - it makes it sound like quarantine is just for the sake of it. With more knowledge and better technology, the 14-days could possibly be reduced, but the quarantine is one of the oldest medical technologies we have - an empirical test for "do you have the virus".

moultano 6y ago

Yes, they should quarantine until they're able to get a test and test negative. We have a lot of evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread.

arrrg 6y ago

You are infectious about 1-2 days before the onset of symptoms. Actually, at the onset of symptoms many are already getting less infectious. That’s why this one’s hard to catch up with. You need to be very quick when contact tracing. So, yeah, absolutely, you should quarantine after contact with a known infected person, no matter whether you have symptoms or not.

joshuamorton 6y ago

They should quarantine until tested. The idea is that with mild social distancing + contact tracing + good testing infra, you can track virus spread faster than the virus actually spreads, keeping outbreaks localized.