Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Self isolation question



kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,091
If you were to voluntarily self-isolate for 14 days despite not showing any symptoms, could you be almost certain you were virus-free?
 




A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,307
as the criteria for alcohol based sanitisers is to kill germs on skin, if you drink a minimum of one bottle of gin or vodka each day then i think the answer is yes
 


jonnyrovers

mostly tinpot
Aug 13, 2013
1,181
Shoreham-by-Sea
If you were to voluntarily self-isolate for 14 days despite not showing any symptoms, could you be almost certain you were virus-free?

Yeah but if you wanna avoid catching it you'll have to self isolate for a little bit longer than that.
 


The Optimist

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 6, 2008
2,609
Lewisham
If you were to voluntarily self-isolate for 14 days despite not showing any symptoms, could you be almost certain you were virus-free?

If after the 14 days you still had no symptoms, then yes you would almost certainly be virus free. However as soon as you went back out into the world you’d lose that guarantee.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,630
Fiveways
If you were to voluntarily self-isolate for 14 days despite not showing any symptoms, could you be almost certain you were virus-free?

I'm not claiming any specialist knowledge here, but I'd imagine it depends on who you've been in contact with during that period (self-isolation tends to be interpreted as home-bound, as opposed to not being in physical contact with housemates/friends/family members).
And again from my limited understanding, after 14 days of complete self-isolation, you may have actually contracted the disease (because, in some instances, it's either asymptomatic or the symptoms are often extremely mild that you wouldn't be aware of them) and, if this were the case, then you'd thereafter be immune. If you self-isolated and didn't pick up the disease, then you'd not only only be virus-free, you'd also remain liable to pick up the virus.

There's some good news on C4 News this evening: a company has developed a test that is much quicker than what the NHS (and other public health authorities) have been relying on. It reveals whether you are infected within 10 minutes.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,861
Faversham
I'm not claiming any specialist knowledge here, but I'd imagine it depends on who you've been in contact with during that period (self-isolation tends to be interpreted as home-bound, as opposed to not being in physical contact with housemates/friends/family members).
And again from my limited understanding, after 14 days of complete self-isolation, you may have actually contracted the disease (because, in some instances, it's either asymptomatic or the symptoms are often extremely mild that you wouldn't be aware of them) and, if this were the case, then you'd thereafter be immune. If you self-isolated and didn't pick up the disease, then you'd not only only be virus-free, you'd also remain liable to pick up the virus.

There's some good news on C4 News this evening: a company has developed a test that is much quicker than what the NHS (and other public health authorities) have been relying on. It reveals whether you are infected within 10 minutes.

The first two replies are sufficient.

Slightly odd question [MENTION=11720]kevo[/MENTION]. Have you worded it quite as you meant it? :thumbsup:
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,091
If after the 14 days you still had no symptoms, then yes you would almost certainly be virus free. However as soon as you went back out into the world you’d lose that guarantee.

True. I was thinking if you needed to visit a vulnerable person, say an elderly relative with other health issues, this might be one way (albeit an extreme way) of doing it.
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,861
Faversham
True. I was thinking if you needed to visit a vulnerable person, say an elderly relative with other health issues, this might be one way (albeit an extreme way) of doing it.

Ah! Makes sense now. Yes, provided you travel to where they are with a paper bag over your head.

Seriously, I think that if you inhale a bit of virus en route you could puff it (or it's children, grandchildren etc - the buggers reproduce very fast) out on arrival. So you should be fine if you travel by car.

Good to hear about someone thinking about the welfare of someone else.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,685
Hurst Green
Ah! Makes sense now. Yes, provided you travel to where they are with a paper bag over your head.

Seriously, I think that if you inhale a bit of virus en route you could puff it (or it's children, grandchildren etc - the buggers reproduce very fast) out on arrival. So you should be fine if you travel by car.

Good to hear about someone thinking about the welfare of someone else.

The hard part is isolating someone you live with. My wife needs protecting, I need to work though,but am able to restrict certain things, such as training people at the brewery etc. I have worked at home for the last few days while I sort things out with HR.
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,091
Ah! Makes sense now. Yes, provided you travel to where they are with a paper bag over your head.

Seriously, I think that if you inhale a bit of virus en route you could puff it (or it's children, grandchildren etc - the buggers reproduce very fast) out on arrival. So you should be fine if you travel by car.

Good to hear about someone thinking about the welfare of someone else.

I was thinking of my own personal situation - but also someone at work was telling me they have a friend whose mum has cancer. He obviously wants to visit her, but is terrified of giving her the virus and actually making her condition worse.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,289
There's some good news on C4 News this evening: a company has developed a test that is much quicker than what the NHS (and other public health authorities) have been relying on. It reveals whether you are infected within 10 minutes.

find this unlikely as currently the tests are genome based, looking for signature genes from the virus. thats why its been so difficult and slow for test, you have to do it in labs. could change of course, would have thought more of a stir. someone did claim to have antibody detection last week but nothing more heard.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here