Isolation advice please

Sister isolating since testing positive 12 days ago. No symptoms but still testing positive! Does she still need to isolate? Confused with info on government website. Thanks.

Ask 111

Yes in she need to be in isolation until the test is negative unfortunately

Not true. Unless she?s got a temperature?

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection#SymptomsPositiveTest

?You do not need to take any more LFD tests after the 10th day of your self-isolation period and you may stop self-isolating after this day. This is because you are unlikely to be infectious after the 10th day of your self-isolation period. Even if you have a positive LFD test result on the 10th day of your self-isolation period you do not need to take any more LFD tests after this day and you do not need a follow-up PCR test. If you are concerned you may choose to limit close contact with other people, especially those who are at higher risk of severe illness until 14 days after the start of your self-isolation period.?

Also

"From Monday 17 January, people with COVID-19 in England can end their self-isolation after 5 full days, as long as they test negative on day 5 and day 6"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/self-isolation-for-those-with-covid-19-can-end-after-five-full-days-following-two-negative-lfd-tests

To be honest, the conditions of self-isolation are much softer now. I even stopped worrying about it. My job became remote a year and a half ago. I spend a lot of time at home but I have been able to expand my social contacts online. You can read the recommendations in this article. That is, I no longer feel my isolation from the fact that I may not be able to show standard social activity now. It seems to me that this is a good skill for the current time.

Can someone tell me what is the current situation, as the latest NHS advice (page last reviewed 14 April) is unclear, at least to me.

If someone has had symptoms, but now doesn't have any symptoms at all and feels completely normal, but is still testing positive on the seventh day, do they have to continue to self-isolate?

111 refused to give any advice, on the basis that the person had no symptoms !!!!

(It isn't me who had it, I'm asking for someone elae).

There is no requirement to self isolate at all!

Peckhampam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no requirement to self isolate at all!

Well, there's a moral obligation, I would say. I probably wasn't clear in my post. What I should have said was, are they still likely to be transmitting the virus.

The person phoned 111 again and this time actually got put through to a medic, who advised that he should not be around other people if still testing positive, so he is continuing to self isolate.

ETA: The reason such a large proportion of the population now have Covid is precisely because all the "requirements" were taken away.

I agree but I thought you were asking for the requirements

Peckhampam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree but I thought you were asking for the

> requirements

As I said above, I wasn't clear. Sorry.

If you have tested positive with symptoms you are likely to be less infectious by day 5/6 after testing - and probably not infectious after day 10. If you have tested as a consequence of a contact testing positive, but you have no symptoms, you cannot tell when it was likely you were infected [you could have infected the contact, or been infected at some other time by some other person] - so leaving 5 days after testing again is sensible but not 'required'. If symptomatic you have probably become so 2-3 days after infection.

If your are positive but asymptomatic (no sneezing or coughing) your chances of infecting others will be reduced, particularly if you wear a mask when in enclosed spaces. As has been said, there is now no legal requirement to self isolate, but as also been said normal consideration of others would suggest you are careful, particularly if you know you will be in contact with someone at risk through a function of age or other health problems.

Unfortunately most current symptoms mimic 'normal' cold symptoms - so without testing you cannot know, if symptomatic, the proximate cause.

Whilst there was a huge surge of Covid infections around and after Christmas 'excess deaths' as measured by the NHS in England showed as 'negative' (there were fewer deaths than statistically expected, from any cause) for the months after Christmas until mid March, when they did start to climb (into treble figures by April although that may not be statistically significant) - the cause of these deaths may well not have been Covid. What I am saying is that Covid's impact on public health as regards mortality (or probably serious illness) seems much diminished against the earlier 'waves' of infection, probably as a result of vaccinations and recovery from earlier infection offering a protection against the severity of the possible effects.

He has made the decision to follow the advice given by 111 and not to go anywhere where he would be mixing with people until he tests negative (which he still hasn't done. Tenth day now.)

He realises the chances of transmission are small at this point, especially if he wears an FFP2 mask, but he doesn't want to risk infecting anybody else, however smnall the risk.

He had symptoms initially, but has been symptom- free for a few days now.

until he tests negative (which he still hasn't done. Tenth day now.)

Some people continue to test positive for many days over the 10; it is however most unlikely that at that stage they are actually still infectious. Though not, of course, impossible.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> until he tests negative (which he still hasn't

> done. Tenth day now.)

>

> Some people continue to test positive for many

> days over the 10; it is however most unlikely that

> at that stage they are actually still infectious.

> Though not, of course, impossible.

Well, he is continuing to abide by the advice given by a medic on 111.

Yes. I happened to catch some expert answers to viewers' Covid questions on BBBC1 Breakfast this morning. I'll try to get an audio version of the relevant bit, which more or less confirmed my own view, that the LFT positive test should be taken as definitive. I'd also be inclined to add a few days' leeway once that stops, even with mask etc, at least before any contact with anyone particularly vulnerable.

The guy did mention cases where traces of virus lingered on in a few people for months without their necessarily being infectious, though I suppose that doesn't rule out the possibility of a Typhoid Mary carrier type very occasionally existing. It's really all a matter of probabilities and making fairly reasonable judgements about them.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's really all a matter of

> probabilities and making fairly reasonable

> judgements about them.

Yes. I think mingling with people in a crowded room after a positive LFT test, however relatively low the risk to them, is antisocial to say the least.