Will Shortened Isolation Periods Spread the Virus?

alaskanseminole

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2002
11,076
12,621
113
The decision by federal health officials to shorten isolation periods for Americans infected with the coronavirus drew both tempered support and intense opposition from scientists Tuesday, particularly over the absence of a testing requirement and fears that the omission could hasten the spread of the highly contagious omicron variant.

The new guidance, coming amid a crush of new infections that has starved many hospitals of workers, seemed to some scientists like a necessary step to shore up workforces in essential industries. And encouraging people to leave isolation early after testing negative could spare them the hardships of prolonged periods at home.

But letting hundreds of thousands of infected people forgo those tests — even if, crucially, their symptoms were not entirely gone — risks seeding new cases and heaping even more pressure on already overburdened health systems, experts said Tuesday.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times


“To me, this feels honestly more about economics than about the science,” said Yonatan Grad, an associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who has tracked coronavirus infections in the NBA.

“I suspect what it will do is result in at least some people emerging from isolation more quickly, and so there’ll be more opportunities for transmission and that of course will accelerate the spread of COVID-19,” he added, noting that people were unlikely to adhere strictly to masking advice after leaving isolation.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Tuesday that the new guidance had been necessitated by the volume of people about to be infected.

In a series of holiday weekend meetings, she said, agency officials pored over transmissibility data for past variants and signs that omicron caused less severe illness. But ultimately, Walensky said, she decided that rapid tests were not effective enough at diagnosing infectiousness in people.

“You don’t necessarily do a test if you don’t know what you’re going to do with the result,” she said, adding, “The anticipated number of cases that we were seeing required us to take action at this moment.”

The CDC’s recommendations cut isolation periods for infected people from 10 days to five. The agency did not recommend rapid testing before people left isolation.

But some scientists maintain that rapid tests are the most convenient indication of whether or not someone remains contagious. Regulatory delays, manufacturing problems and shortfalls in government support have left rapid tests in extremely short supply as the omicron variant has surged, pushing caseloads to near record levels in the United States.

According to a scientist who has discussed isolation policy with the CDC in recent months, officials said the agency could not recommend rapid tests while supplies were so scarce. The scientist spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential discussions.

President Joe Biden has promised to make 500 million tests available free of charge, but it is not clear how quickly they will be shipped.

Walensky denied that testing availability affected the agency’s thinking and said that masking alone addressed the risk that infected people remained contagious after isolation. The CDC has asked infected people to wear a mask around others for five days after leaving isolation.

“We know that, let’s call it 85% of your transmissibility time is already behind you,” Walensky said of the five-day isolation period. “A minority of it is in front of you. And if you wear a mask, you can avert it.”

Scientists said they worried that like rapid tests, the most effective masks, known as N95s, remained out of reach for many Americans.

The Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday that rapid tests do detect Omicron cases, though they may have reduced sensitivity. (Another type of test, known as a PCR, is not useful for releasing people from isolation because it can return positive results after someone is no longer contagious.)

One federal official said the CDC incorporated unpublished modeling on the spread of the delta variant that found the risk of transmission was 13% five days after someone tested positive. The CDC was working to make that data public, the official said.

Scientists, though, expressed concern about applying models of delta’s spread at a time when omicron was fast becoming dominant. The variant has a considerably easier time than delta infecting vaccinated people. It is also highly contagious, potentially even more so than delta.

The right isolation periods for omicron depend on when people are testing, as well as an individual's level of immunity and the properties of the variant itself, scientists said. Some people remain contagious fmuch longer than others, and evidence from rapid tests suggests certain patients are still infectious for longer than five days.

“I’d be very wary of translating data from delta to omicron,” said Stephen Goldstein, a virus expert at the University of Utah. “I think there’s the potential for this to make things even worse or accelerate the course of the pandemic.”

Immunologists said Tuesday that there were also signs that people infected with omicron were developing symptoms earlier in the course of infections than they had with past variants — a shift that could have major ramifications for isolation periods.

Those symptoms, they said, were making people aware of their illnesses sooner and, in some cases, compelling them to get tested sooner. Those people may be starting the clock on their isolation periods at the very beginning of their infections — rather than at the middle or end, as was true earlier in the pandemic — and returning to work while they remain contagious.

“I don’t think reducing the time for isolation overall is a bad idea,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virus expert at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “But saying, ‘Five days is probably OK, based on delta, so let’s give it a shot and see,’ is really not what you should be doing.”

She added, “This could’ve been implemented in a much more reasonable and lower-risk way.”

The CDC has long faced criticism for issuing confusing guidance during the pandemic, particularly on the use of face masks. Its isolation advice Monday did little to allay those concerns, scientists said.

Several doctors, for example, said they were struggling to grasp what patients would fit under the CDC’s advice that infected people whose symptoms were “resolving” could leave isolation after five days.

Many people’s symptoms fluctuated over the course of a single day, they said. Other patients may seem to be feeling better before experiencing a flare-up.

“The guidance is far more confusing than it could and should be,” said Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician and academic dean at Brown University’s School of Public Health.

“Front and center, this should be for people who are not symptomatic. If you have symptoms, you should not be out in public.”

Dr. Marc Boom, CEO of Houston Methodist, said he was grateful that the CDC shortened isolation periods for health workers. In the past week, he said, roughly 3% of the workforce had tested positive, putting more significant strain on the hospital than at any other point in the pandemic.

Still, he said that the mixed messages were confusing. “They advanced the public past the basic hospital rules,” Boom said. “That threw us for a loop. We looked at that and said, ‘That makes no sense.’ ”

Scientists said that they expected more data to emerge about the course of omicron infections in the coming weeks.

Ravindra Gupta, a virus expert at the University of Cambridge, said Tuesday that he did not believe people with omicron infections would shed virus for longer than people infected with earlier variants, given signs that it replicated less efficiently in certain human cells.

Infections with earlier variants appeared to last roughly nine days in vaccinated people and 11 days in unvaccinated people, according to studies of NBA personnel, though that did not necessarily mean that people were contagious for that same period.

Denis Nash, a public health researcher at City University of New York, said compliance with any isolation policy appeared low: A study he led indicated that only 29% of people with past infections had isolated, although that included some who never knew they were ill.

But he said it was not at all clear that shortening isolation periods would persuade more people to stay home.

“Not testing after five days of isolation — is that because the testing supply isn’t there?” he said. “If so, that’s no reason to make it a policy.”

© 2021 The New York Times Company

 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
5,873
6,854
113
There are so many people asymptotic walking around not knowing they are carrying I really don’t think it matters.

nobody tests and isolates at a level the pro sports team do and look at it fly through there. Makes you wonder about large factories or even an office building with 100+ people in it.

there is no stopping it, thst goes for everybody in world. Get vaccinated and if you are high risk take more precautions.

regardless of politics that’s reality imo
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
109,980
82,666
113
The decision by federal health officials to shorten isolation periods for Americans infected with the coronavirus drew both tempered support and intense opposition from scientists Tuesday, particularly over the absence of a testing requirement and fears that the omission could hasten the spread of the highly contagious omicron variant.

The new guidance, coming amid a crush of new infections that has starved many hospitals of workers, seemed to some scientists like a necessary step to shore up workforces in essential industries. And encouraging people to leave isolation early after testing negative could spare them the hardships of prolonged periods at home.

But letting hundreds of thousands of infected people forgo those tests — even if, crucially, their symptoms were not entirely gone — risks seeding new cases and heaping even more pressure on already overburdened health systems, experts said Tuesday.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times


“To me, this feels honestly more about economics than about the science,” said Yonatan Grad, an associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who has tracked coronavirus infections in the NBA.

“I suspect what it will do is result in at least some people emerging from isolation more quickly, and so there’ll be more opportunities for transmission and that of course will accelerate the spread of COVID-19,” he added, noting that people were unlikely to adhere strictly to masking advice after leaving isolation.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Tuesday that the new guidance had been necessitated by the volume of people about to be infected.

In a series of holiday weekend meetings, she said, agency officials pored over transmissibility data for past variants and signs that omicron caused less severe illness. But ultimately, Walensky said, she decided that rapid tests were not effective enough at diagnosing infectiousness in people.

“You don’t necessarily do a test if you don’t know what you’re going to do with the result,” she said, adding, “The anticipated number of cases that we were seeing required us to take action at this moment.”

The CDC’s recommendations cut isolation periods for infected people from 10 days to five. The agency did not recommend rapid testing before people left isolation.

But some scientists maintain that rapid tests are the most convenient indication of whether or not someone remains contagious. Regulatory delays, manufacturing problems and shortfalls in government support have left rapid tests in extremely short supply as the omicron variant has surged, pushing caseloads to near record levels in the United States.

According to a scientist who has discussed isolation policy with the CDC in recent months, officials said the agency could not recommend rapid tests while supplies were so scarce. The scientist spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential discussions.

President Joe Biden has promised to make 500 million tests available free of charge, but it is not clear how quickly they will be shipped.

Walensky denied that testing availability affected the agency’s thinking and said that masking alone addressed the risk that infected people remained contagious after isolation. The CDC has asked infected people to wear a mask around others for five days after leaving isolation.

“We know that, let’s call it 85% of your transmissibility time is already behind you,” Walensky said of the five-day isolation period. “A minority of it is in front of you. And if you wear a mask, you can avert it.”

Scientists said they worried that like rapid tests, the most effective masks, known as N95s, remained out of reach for many Americans.

The Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday that rapid tests do detect Omicron cases, though they may have reduced sensitivity. (Another type of test, known as a PCR, is not useful for releasing people from isolation because it can return positive results after someone is no longer contagious.)

One federal official said the CDC incorporated unpublished modeling on the spread of the delta variant that found the risk of transmission was 13% five days after someone tested positive. The CDC was working to make that data public, the official said.

Scientists, though, expressed concern about applying models of delta’s spread at a time when omicron was fast becoming dominant. The variant has a considerably easier time than delta infecting vaccinated people. It is also highly contagious, potentially even more so than delta.

The right isolation periods for omicron depend on when people are testing, as well as an individual's level of immunity and the properties of the variant itself, scientists said. Some people remain contagious fmuch longer than others, and evidence from rapid tests suggests certain patients are still infectious for longer than five days.

“I’d be very wary of translating data from delta to omicron,” said Stephen Goldstein, a virus expert at the University of Utah. “I think there’s the potential for this to make things even worse or accelerate the course of the pandemic.”

Immunologists said Tuesday that there were also signs that people infected with omicron were developing symptoms earlier in the course of infections than they had with past variants — a shift that could have major ramifications for isolation periods.

Those symptoms, they said, were making people aware of their illnesses sooner and, in some cases, compelling them to get tested sooner. Those people may be starting the clock on their isolation periods at the very beginning of their infections — rather than at the middle or end, as was true earlier in the pandemic — and returning to work while they remain contagious.

“I don’t think reducing the time for isolation overall is a bad idea,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virus expert at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “But saying, ‘Five days is probably OK, based on delta, so let’s give it a shot and see,’ is really not what you should be doing.”

She added, “This could’ve been implemented in a much more reasonable and lower-risk way.”

The CDC has long faced criticism for issuing confusing guidance during the pandemic, particularly on the use of face masks. Its isolation advice Monday did little to allay those concerns, scientists said.

Several doctors, for example, said they were struggling to grasp what patients would fit under the CDC’s advice that infected people whose symptoms were “resolving” could leave isolation after five days.

Many people’s symptoms fluctuated over the course of a single day, they said. Other patients may seem to be feeling better before experiencing a flare-up.

“The guidance is far more confusing than it could and should be,” said Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician and academic dean at Brown University’s School of Public Health.

“Front and center, this should be for people who are not symptomatic. If you have symptoms, you should not be out in public.”

Dr. Marc Boom, CEO of Houston Methodist, said he was grateful that the CDC shortened isolation periods for health workers. In the past week, he said, roughly 3% of the workforce had tested positive, putting more significant strain on the hospital than at any other point in the pandemic.

Still, he said that the mixed messages were confusing. “They advanced the public past the basic hospital rules,” Boom said. “That threw us for a loop. We looked at that and said, ‘That makes no sense.’ ”

Scientists said that they expected more data to emerge about the course of omicron infections in the coming weeks.

Ravindra Gupta, a virus expert at the University of Cambridge, said Tuesday that he did not believe people with omicron infections would shed virus for longer than people infected with earlier variants, given signs that it replicated less efficiently in certain human cells.

Infections with earlier variants appeared to last roughly nine days in vaccinated people and 11 days in unvaccinated people, according to studies of NBA personnel, though that did not necessarily mean that people were contagious for that same period.

Denis Nash, a public health researcher at City University of New York, said compliance with any isolation policy appeared low: A study he led indicated that only 29% of people with past infections had isolated, although that included some who never knew they were ill.

But he said it was not at all clear that shortening isolation periods would persuade more people to stay home.

“Not testing after five days of isolation — is that because the testing supply isn’t there?” he said. “If so, that’s no reason to make it a policy.”

© 2021 The New York Times Company


What a clusterfark.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
109,980
82,666
113
Healthcare workers are up in arms over a new U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emergency guidance that allows healthcare workers who have had “higher risk exposures” to COVID, and even those infected with COVID to return to work after a five day quarantine as long as they’re asymptomatic.

Nurses groups are condemning the CDC’s guidance as “potentially dangerous” for both workers and patients.

Earlier this month, the CDC issued the alert to health care workers across the United States as a “contingency” plan for anticipated staffing shortages due to the highly transmissible Omicron variant.

The new recommendations seek “to enhance protection for healthcare personnel, patients, and visitors, and ensure adequate staffing in healthcare facilities,” according to the CDC’s guidance.

“Under conventional conditions, healthcare facilities can allow asymptomatic healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of vaccination status, to return to work after seven days and a negative test in accordance with CDC guidance,” the alert states.

But “under contingency conditions, healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection can return to work at five days, if asymptomatic, with facilities having the option to include a negative viral test in the criteria to return to work,” according to the guidance.

Under crisis conditions, the CDC guidance continues, “such personnel can remain at work or can return to work at less than five days” even if they are “mildly symptomatic” without testing “as a last resort.”

“These healthcare personnel should wear a respirator or well-fitting facemask even when they are in non-patient care areas,” the CDC says. “Facilities should consider assigning these healthcare personnel to duties that do not include care of immunocompromised patients.”

Although early data suggest the Omicron infection is a milder infection than prior variants, the CDC is prepping for a surge in hospitalizations due to a potential “large increase in the number of infections” that could still result in “many people with severe outcomes requiring medical care in a short period.”

National Nurses United (NNU), the nation’s largest nurses’ union, put out a statement condemning the CDC’s emergency guidance, and warning that “shortening the isolation time for Covid-positive asymptomatic health care workers will only lead to more transmission.”

The group on Dec. 22 sent a letter to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky urging the agency to “maintain current guidance regarding isolation after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test for health care workers, other frontline workers, and the general public.” The letter was signed by NNU President Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN.

“Weakening Covid-19 guidance now, in the face of what could be the most devastating Covid-19 surge yet, will only result in further transmission, illness, and death,” wrote Triunfo-Cortez. The RN argued that the rationale for reducing the isolation timeframe is about “maintaining business operations, revenues, and profits, without regard for science or the health of employees and the public.”

“Strengthening, not weakening protections, is the solution to the staffing crisis ” said Triunfo-Cortez. “The hospital industry manufactured the current staffing crisis by imposing unsafe working conditions on nurses. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated long standing staffing issues when hospitals failed to protect us and our patients.”

The New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) also blasted the CDC’s guidance in a statement, saying it is “inconsistent with proven science, vague, and doesn’t provide definitions or explain standards at a time when decision-making for healthcare systems is critical.”

Healthcare worker infection rates are not being tracked and there’s no substantial evidence behind the CDC changing this guidance. But there is a healthcare staffing crisis the CDC cited as the justification for it.

The statement faulted the CDC for not taking “every measure which would reduce risk of healthcare worker infection,” including “requiring all healthcare workers be supplied with N95s, home testing kits, or requiring portable HEPA filtration in areas like break rooms.” The group said such measures “would protect healthcare workers and their patients.”

Not prioritizing the safety and retention of healthcare workers from the beginning of the pandemic is what exacerbated staffing shortages. That’s job #1 in pandemic response.
This guidance is only going to worsen the shortage and put our patients at risk. Our healthcare workers deserve better and our patients deserve better.
Outraged nurses are also lambasting the guidance on social media.

“For me, it’s not the fear of getting covid,” said one nurse on TikTok. “It’s the fear of spreading it to someone else. How are we supposed to care for patients safely?”

“From healthcare heroes to human sacrifice,” she noted. “Thanks for the updated guidelines, CDC. This country is at an all time low. When did the lives of your healthcare workers and their patients become so expendable?”

 

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,152
18,290
113
Healthcare workers are up in arms over a new U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emergency guidance that allows healthcare workers who have had “higher risk exposures” to COVID, and even those infected with COVID to return to work after a five day quarantine as long as they’re asymptomatic.

Nurses groups are condemning the CDC’s guidance as “potentially dangerous” for both workers and patients.

Earlier this month, the CDC issued the alert to health care workers across the United States as a “contingency” plan for anticipated staffing shortages due to the highly transmissible Omicron variant.

The new recommendations seek “to enhance protection for healthcare personnel, patients, and visitors, and ensure adequate staffing in healthcare facilities,” according to the CDC’s guidance.

“Under conventional conditions, healthcare facilities can allow asymptomatic healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of vaccination status, to return to work after seven days and a negative test in accordance with CDC guidance,” the alert states.

But “under contingency conditions, healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection can return to work at five days, if asymptomatic, with facilities having the option to include a negative viral test in the criteria to return to work,” according to the guidance.

Under crisis conditions, the CDC guidance continues, “such personnel can remain at work or can return to work at less than five days” even if they are “mildly symptomatic” without testing “as a last resort.”

“These healthcare personnel should wear a respirator or well-fitting facemask even when they are in non-patient care areas,” the CDC says. “Facilities should consider assigning these healthcare personnel to duties that do not include care of immunocompromised patients.”

Although early data suggest the Omicron infection is a milder infection than prior variants, the CDC is prepping for a surge in hospitalizations due to a potential “large increase in the number of infections” that could still result in “many people with severe outcomes requiring medical care in a short period.”

National Nurses United (NNU), the nation’s largest nurses’ union, put out a statement condemning the CDC’s emergency guidance, and warning that “shortening the isolation time for Covid-positive asymptomatic health care workers will only lead to more transmission.”

The group on Dec. 22 sent a letter to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky urging the agency to “maintain current guidance regarding isolation after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test for health care workers, other frontline workers, and the general public.” The letter was signed by NNU President Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN.

“Weakening Covid-19 guidance now, in the face of what could be the most devastating Covid-19 surge yet, will only result in further transmission, illness, and death,” wrote Triunfo-Cortez. The RN argued that the rationale for reducing the isolation timeframe is about “maintaining business operations, revenues, and profits, without regard for science or the health of employees and the public.”

“Strengthening, not weakening protections, is the solution to the staffing crisis ” said Triunfo-Cortez. “The hospital industry manufactured the current staffing crisis by imposing unsafe working conditions on nurses. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated long standing staffing issues when hospitals failed to protect us and our patients.”

The New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) also blasted the CDC’s guidance in a statement, saying it is “inconsistent with proven science, vague, and doesn’t provide definitions or explain standards at a time when decision-making for healthcare systems is critical.”

Healthcare worker infection rates are not being tracked and there’s no substantial evidence behind the CDC changing this guidance. But there is a healthcare staffing crisis the CDC cited as the justification for it.

The statement faulted the CDC for not taking “every measure which would reduce risk of healthcare worker infection,” including “requiring all healthcare workers be supplied with N95s, home testing kits, or requiring portable HEPA filtration in areas like break rooms.” The group said such measures “would protect healthcare workers and their patients.”


Outraged nurses are also lambasting the guidance on social media.

“For me, it’s not the fear of getting covid,” said one nurse on TikTok. “It’s the fear of spreading it to someone else. How are we supposed to care for patients safely?”

“From healthcare heroes to human sacrifice,” she noted. “Thanks for the updated guidelines, CDC. This country is at an all time low. When did the lives of your healthcare workers and their patients become so expendable?”

The nursing profession is interesting. Trad regularly posts other articles with an equal number of nurses objecting to getting the vaccination
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,052
52,798
113
“To me, this feels honestly more about economics than about the science,” said Yonatan Grad, an associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who has tracked coronavirus infections in the NBA.

That is a meaningless statement, often repeated but never scrutinized. It's not economics vs science. It is about balancing the cost of trying to eliminate as many deaths as possible. Just based on "science" it could be argued that no motor vehicles should be manufactured, sold, or operated than can exceed 25mph; because speeds above that can and do result in nearly 50,000 deaths every year. But we don't make that decision, because we've decided the inconvenience is too great. It's not like we deny it would save lives. Just based on science we should have locked down March 2020 and still be locked down today. We just aren't willing to make that sacrifice.

At some point the lack of essential services, the drop in quality of life, the frustration and depression that are directly related to our mitigation efforts have to be weighed against how effective they really are. So we change quarantine to five days, which lessens the spread at a lower cost than two weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97
May 27, 2010
14,881
18,525
113
I think the cows are out of the barn at this point in time. Our best hope is that any future variants are less lethal than the ones we’ve experienced so far. Based on personal experience (all three of my adult sons have contracted the virus in the last month) there’s little we can do now to stop the virus and we’re all essentially living in a petri dish now. Best thing to do is get vaxxed/boostered and pray that it’s enough.
 

OrlandNole

HR Heisman
Nov 29, 2003
5,316
11,143
113
Nashvegas
It spread through our house like wildfire this week. We're in the process of transitioning from pandemic to endemic.