Time to scrap self isolation for good?

[PTR 444]

Omicron is crippling the country. Not because people are falling ill, but because we are being encouraged to test for a variant which has a 99% survival rate, and people who are well and displaying no symptoms are having to take time off work. I understand that people are testing out of respect to more vulnerable members of society, but this poses a risk that if you test positive, you lose your freedom to participate in society for ten days, and thus the wider economy loses out over a variant which is increasingly becoming no more deadly than a common cold.

I therefore propose that citizens should only be advised to take a test if they are displaying symptoms or coming into contact with people who are clinically extremely vulnerable. If tested positive, citizens will still need to isolate for 10 days, but can end this early if they provide 3 negative tests in a row before the isolation period ends. This means that you could be released from isolation in as little as 3 days from the initial positive test, since you would need to take the tests at least 24 hours apart for them to be valid.

My proposal will protect those who are at most risk of dying from the virus, while ensuring that the wider economy can rebound with minimal staff shortages and a much needed consumer confidence boost. Please let me know in the poll whether you support or reject this plan and specify any amendments you would like to make.

 

[johnnychips]

Why take a test at all? If you feel ill, stay off work then come back when you feel better.

Perhaps one positive out of this thing might be that people don’t drag themselves into work when they feel ill because they are ‘letting the side down’, and in fact all they do is perform sub-optimally and give everybody else their cold.

 

[Berliner]

Why take a test at all? If you feel ill, stay off work then come back when you feel better.

Perhaps one positive out of this thing might be that people don’t drag themselves into work when they feel ill because they are ‘letting the side down’, and in fact all they do is perform sub-optimally and give everybody else their cold.

This is how we acted until covid came along. Admittedly, at first, when the seriousness of the virus was not known, it was wise to try and limit the spread, but, now, with effective vaccines and treatments, so much more understanding of covid and, perhaps most importantly, a much weaker variant now dominant, what is the point exactly in singling out covid as something special?


As with anything, if you're actually ill, stay off and work from home if you can manage and absolutely have to, but for the mildly sick and especially the asymptomatic or those who just happen to be unlucky enough to live with someone who has the virus (who may themselves have mild or no symptoms), there is absolutely no reason to isolate. The vast majority of those they will interact with in the workplace or daily life will be at least double vaccinated or have already had covid, possibly both, so will have a high level of immunity anyway. In any case, they are not in any great danger from covid. If you happen to work with someone who is vulnerable or for whatever reason isn't vaccinated or has no kind of natural immunity then it can be taken on a case by case basis and workplaces can come up with their own processes, but these blanket, government mandated, rules are totally crippling workplaces while healthy people sit at home.

 

[Yew]

I'd give it a month for the current Omicron wave to subside.

 

[philosopher]

Omicron is crippling the country. Not because people are falling ill, but because we are being encouraged to test for a variant which has a 99% survival rate, and people who are well and displaying no symptoms are having to take time off work. I understand that people are testing out of respect to more vulnerable members of society, but this poses a risk that if you test positive, you lose your freedom to participate in society for ten days, and thus the wider economy loses out over a variant which is increasingly becoming no more deadly than a common cold.

I therefore propose that citizens should only be advised to take a test if they are displaying symptoms or coming into contact with people who are clinically extremely vulnerable. If tested positive, citizens will still need to isolate for 10 days, but can end this early if they provide 3 negative tests in a row before the isolation period ends. This means that you could be released from isolation in as little as 3 days from the initial positive test, since you would need to take the tests at least 24 hours apart for them to be valid.

My proposal will protect those who are at most risk of dying from the virus, while ensuring that the wider economy can rebound with minimal staff shortages and a much needed consumer confidence boost. Please let me know in the poll whether you support or reject this plan and specify any amendments you would like to make.

I do agree with being able to leave isolation with three negative tests, however for those who are positive, I think rather than a blanket self isolation, they should be subject to the same restrictions as during the lockdowns, i.e, you can only leave home to buy essential goods, for exercise and for work if you can’t work from home. For those who test positive and have to be on site for work, employers should be encouraged to put them in positions that involve minimal interaction with others if possible, so for example a supermarket worker would spend that time stacking shelves rather than dealing with customers.

I am not sure whether asymptomatic testing should continue, mainly as I have read conflicting evidence on the level of asymptomatic transmission that occurs with Covid.

 

[Bantamzen]

We need to go back to the times when we were sick, we just knew to stay at home. We don't need rules & laws, what we need is a better SSP system that would allow people with symptoms to stay at home & not worry about losing pay. Its really that simple.

 

[317 forever]

I do agree with being able to leave isolation with three negative tests, however for those who are positive, I think rather than a blanket self isolation, they should be subject to the same restrictions as during the lockdowns, i.e, you can only leave home to buy essential goods, for exercise and for work if you can’t work from home. For those who test positive and have to be on site for work, employers should be encouraged to put them in positions that involve minimal interaction with others if possible, so for example a supermarket worker would spend that time stacking shelves rather than dealing with customers.

I am not sure whether asymptomatic testing should continue, mainly as I have read conflicting evidence on the level of asymptomatic transmission that occurs with Covid.

It is already taking things to a heartless and immoral extreme denying people the right to buy essential goods, especially of they do not even have any symptoms. This risk resulting from a positive test meant that, when a lateral flow test was requested ahead of a Christmas social, I declined the invitation. I have never even had any symptoms anyway.

Given that, of the people who do test positive, the death rate is now at an all-time low, there need no longer be much if any of a priority to isolate. I know of another forum where not everyone agrees (but I won't be specific here).

 

[nw1]

It is already taking things to a heartless and immoral extreme denying people the right to buy essential goods, especially of they do not even have any symptoms. This risk resulting from a positive test meant that, when a lateral flow test was requested ahead of a Christmas social, I declined the invitation. I have never even had any symptoms anyway.

I guess the only issue is that people working in shops will be exposed to people who knowingly have Covid. However some countries only have a 5-day isolation period, so I think there's probably an argument for cutting isolation to 5 days, or, alternatively, when symptoms have disappeared. And moving forward I think they need to seriously look into the end of isolation altogether for the asymptomatic, given Covid isn't going to go away.

The biggest problem in that respect was early on in the crisis in 2020, where people were being asked to isolate if they just had a cough, a very generic symptom of a whole range of viral illnesses and other things. There were no tests. It was hopeless trying to get online delivery. So basically you were stuffed if you wanted to get something as basic as food, and the government attitude was 'not our problem'. They should perhaps have restricted the isolation advice to high fever or the loss of taste and smell, as coughs have many other causes besides Covid. Thankfully I avoided the classic symptoms (whether from Covid or anything else) in 2020 so wasn't placed in that situation but it would have been very difficult if you were.

 

[bengley]

I guess the only issue is that people working in shops will be exposed to people who knowingly have Covid. However some countries only have a 5-day isolation period, so I think there's probably an argument for cutting isolation to 5 days, or, alternatively, when symptoms have disappeared. And moving forward I think they need to seriously look into the end of isolation altogether for the asymptomatic, given Covid isn't going to go away.

The biggest problem in that respect was early on in the crisis in 2020, where people were being asked to isolate if they just had a cough, a very generic symptom of a whole range of viral illnesses and other things. There were no tests. It was hopeless trying to get online delivery. So basically you were stuffed if you wanted to get something as basic as food, and the government attitude was 'not our problem'. They should perhaps have restricted the isolation advice to high fever or the loss of taste and smell, as coughs have many other causes besides Covid. Thankfully I avoided the classic symptoms (whether from Covid or anything else) in 2020 so wasn't placed in that situation but it would have been very difficult if you were.

As someone living on my own at the time, if I had COVID symptoms and was unable to get online deliveries, I would have unfortunately had no choice but to go to the shops regardless of government advice/law. Luckily this situation never presented itself.

 

[Berliner]

I guess the only issue is that people working in shops will be exposed to people who knowingly have Covid. However some countries only have a 5-day isolation period, so I think there's probably an argument for cutting isolation to 5 days, or, alternatively, when symptoms have disappeared. And moving forward I think they need to seriously look into the end of isolation altogether for the asymptomatic, given Covid isn't going to go away.

But, again, we have multiple effective vaccine and treatments. Why are people still of the mindset that Covid is a dangerous disease for anyone and everyone? How long do we have to keep protecting people from this one virus to the extent that we can't live normally?

It always has been and, thanks to the aforementioned vaccines and treatments, is even more so now, a virus that is dangerous for a very small number of people who I'm sure are smart enough to make thier own mind up, as they have done thier whole lives, up until March 2020, when any number of viruses could have caused them severe harm and no one batted an eye lid on this scale. If we assume that the overwhelming majority of staff in public facing roles (or indeed in roles which cannot be done from home) are now fully vaccinated and likely boostered too, and/or have protection from a previous infection, what exactly is isolation achieving and who is it protecting?

 

[island]

We need to go back to the times when we were sick, we just knew to stay at home. We don't need rules & laws, what we need is a better SSP system that would allow people with symptoms to stay at home & not worry about losing pay. Its really that simple.

To that I would add some sort of better protection for people who are faced with the all too common employer policy that if you're off sick 3 times in a 12 month rolling period you go on "excessive absence monitoring" and can end up being let go if you're off another 2 days.

 

[nw1]

But, again, we have multiple effective vaccine and treatments. Why are people still of the mindset that Covid is a dangerous disease for anyone and everyone? How long do we have to keep protecting people from this one virus to the extent that we can't live normally?

Yes, that is a good point, we certainly can't 'keep' doing it. Personally I wouldn't have a problem about scrapping isolation for the asymptomatic but just raising a possible concern. I certainly think 10 days is too long.

Once the Omicron peak has passed (maybe by the end of this month?) would be a good time to scrap isolation for the asymptomatic and restrict it to 'as long as you are ill, with visits to essential services such as food allowed' for the symptomatic - because as you say we can't carry on living like this forever.

 

[35B]

The testing is not particularly the problem, and is at worst no worse for causing isolations than would waiting for symptoms to appear before testing - there's a trade-off between testing and isolating when asymptomatic, and waiting till symptoms are apparent at which point transmission has started. That leaves the exit from self-isolation, which is now down below 10 days on condition of two negative lateral flow tests.

So as I read it the proposal would risk increasing transmission of Covid by reducing the number of people removing themselves from circulation, while extending the time many people would remain in isolation. If the problem is the disruption caused by people self-isolating, then this seems like a poor and possibly counter-productive way of mitigating that problem.

In the longer term, as others comment, the question is about how we adapt to a situation in which Covid is around for the long term, and we need to balance a number of possible harms from this and other diseases.

 

[greyman42]

To that I would add some sort of better protection for people who are faced with the all too common employer policy that if you're off sick 3 times in a 12 month rolling period you go on "excessive absence monitoring" and can end up being let go if you're off another 2 days.

We cannot expect private companies to endlessly pay out sick pay. And as a tax payer, i don't see why i should foot the bill.

 

[Wychwood93]

We cannot expect private companies to endlessly pay out sick pay. And as a tax payer, i don't see why i should foot the bill.

Indeed. I never took time off unless I was actually 'ill/sick' - too many view 'pulling a sickie' as a way of life. I presume that 'managing for attendance' still exists on the railway? Back in the day there were many whose attendance magically improved when faced with consequences.

 

[MattRat]

Where is the science for self isolation now? The vaccine protects the vulnerable from severe symptoms, and Covid itself is milder than ever. If someone can prove scientifically why we still need self isolation, I'm all ears......

 

[43066]

I therefore propose that citizens should only be advised to take a test if they are displaying symptoms or coming into contact with people who are clinically extremely vulnerable. If tested positive, citizens will still need to isolate for 10 days, but can end this early if they provide 3 negative tests in a row before the isolation period ends. This means that you could be released from isolation in as little as 3 days from the initial positive test, since you would need to take the tests at least 24 hours apart for them to be valid.

So as I read it the proposal would risk increasing transmission of Covid by reducing the number of people removing themselves from circulation, while extending the time many people would remain in isolation.

For all the enormous economic and social damage being done, it’s by no means clear to what extent current isolation policy is meaningfully reducing spread, with the possibility of transmission amongst the vaccinated, and of course the fact that many Covid cases have such mild symptoms that the person might not even feel prompted to take a test.

So the best solution is surely to go a step further than the OP’s proposal and simply abandon mandatory isolation entirely, treating Covid as any other mild respiratory illness. Yes that will potentially increase spread but as we are now in a position where the entire adult population has long since been vaccinated (or at least offered it) that’s not a problem in itself.

Basically we need to move to a world where we abandon isolation and mass testing* and focus purely on symptomatic disease and targeted protections of the vulnerable. Attempts at reducing spread amongst the general population come with enormous costs and, especially in the post Omicron world, are utterly futile.

Whatever anyone thinks of this, all the indications are that what I’ve described will become government policy over the next months.

*Testing will of course likely remain relevant longer term in certain situations eg visiting care homes, hospitals where those wirh compromised immunity are likely to be present etc.

 

[35B]

For all the enormous economic and social damage being done, it’s by no means clear to what extent current isolation policy is meaningfully reducing spread, with the possibility of transmission amongst the vaccinated, and of course the fact that many Covid cases have such mild symptoms that the person might not even feel prompted to take a test.

So the best solution is surely to go a step further than the OP’s proposal and simply abandon mandatory isolation entirely, treating Covid as any other mild respiratory illness. Yes that will potentially increase spread but as we are now in a position where the entire adult population has long since been vaccinated (or at least offered it) that’s not a problem in itself.

Basically we need to move to a world where we abandon isolation and mass testing* and focus purely on symptomatic disease and targeted protections of the vulnerable. Attempts at reducing spread amongst the general population come with enormous costs and, especially in the post Omicron world, are utterly futile.

Whatever anyone thinks of this, all the indications are that what I’ve described will become government policy over the next months.

*Testing will of course likely remain relevant longer term in certain situations eg visiting care homes, hospitals where those wirh compromised immunity are likely to be present etc.

@43066 may be surprised that I would support his approach more than I would the OP.

 

[Dent]

The title of the thread does not match what is described in the opening post. I would support scrapping self isolation (as per the title) at this stage.

 

[43066]

@43066 may be surprised that I would support his approach more than I would the OP.

That’s progress.

For the record I find your posts thought provoking and they contain a good deal of sense. I get the sense a lot of the disagreement is around different perspectives, rather than necessarily differing on fundamental issues.

 

[35B]

That’s progress.

For the record I find your posts thought provoking and they contain a good deal of sense. I get the sense a lot of the disagreement is around different perspectives, rather than necessarily differing on fundamental issues.

I'll take that!

 

[P Binnersley]

According to ONS there were 4.3 million people in the UK who would have tested positive in week ending 6th January.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey headline results, UK - Office for National Statistics

The latest data from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection survey, containing high-level estimates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. 

www.ons.gov.uk

In the previous 10 days there were 1.7 million positive test results.

That leaves 2.6 million people (60%) with Coronavirus who are not self isolating. How many of them are contagious?

 

[MikeWM]

That leaves 2.6 million people (60%) with Coronavirus who are not self isolating. How many of them are contagious?

Not *legally* self-isolating. We've no idea how many people have symptoms and are staying home without having done a test. Equally we don't know how many people may have done an LFT but not reported the positive result.

To the original question : yes, the laws clearly should go. Let's go back to 'stay home if you're ill' - and make any necessary changes to employment law (eg. with zero-hours contracts and the 'gig economy') to facilitate that being feasible for the millions of people that currently cannot, or feel that they cannot, do so.

 

[cuccir]

Well the actual rules are now shifting, arguably to even 'lighter' ones than proposed by the OP. 2 consecutive negative tests mean 'freedom' on day 6.

I think that this is the right move, with a hopeful scrapping of measures in the spring.

 

[Dent]

Well the actual rules are now shifting, arguably to even 'lighter' ones than proposed by the OP. 2 consecutive negative tests mean 'freedom' on day 6.

I think that this is the right move, with a hopeful scrapping of measures in the spring.

Not sure how you could argue that this is "lighter" than proposed in the OP, given that the OP's proposal allows release after three days whereas the latest rules still require at least six.