Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Study Confirms Recommended 14-Day Quarantine Period For Coronavirus (annals.org) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the backed-by-science dept.
"A study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine confirms the recommended 14-day quarantine period for those suspected of having been infected by the COVID-19 virus," writes Slashdot reader RNLockwood. "I'm going to stock up on essentials." From the abstract: Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10,000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine.

Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases.

Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Confirms Recommended 14-Day Quarantine Period For Coronavirus More

Study Confirms Recommended 14-Day Quarantine Period For Coronavirus

Comments Filter:

  • After? (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @07:59AM (#59814306)

    "These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10,000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine. "

    So those will continue spreading after those 14 days or what?

    • Even if they can, over 99% of the people they spread it to will not be able to spread it any further if they in turn are quarantined for 14 days. The numbers fall off rapidly.

      • Even if they can, over 99% of the people they spread it to will not be able to spread it any further if they in turn are quarantined for 14 days.

        But they will not be quarantined for having contact with someone released from quarantine. That's what it means to claim that 14 days is long enough.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Yes the "after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine" is the fun part few get. They go on spreading until sick :)
      14 days is not enough and they have the math .... but its 14 days.
      For a few that 14 days does nothing and they are let out to keep on spreading wuflu.

      • Are people like you for real?

        Yes. 1 person out of the 100 will be released from quarantine after 14 days still potentially able to infect other people. It's not perfect so lets just not quarantine the other 99 and let them all loose instead...

  • Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:27AM (#59814388)
    Almost nobody in America can go 14 days without working. Probably 40% would be homeless if they tried.

    • Re: Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cmdln Daco ( 1183119 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:42AM (#59814442)

      Plenty of us have more that 14 days savings. Many have an unused credit limit that would sustain them longer than that. It's time to not just parrot bromides about 'the homeless' that surface whenever a R is President and then disappear when a D takes over.

      • Re: Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:45AM (#59814450)

        You really think a lot of people can come back to work after 14 days and still have a job?

        • Maybe. [nbcnews.com]
        • There's this thing called FMLA which is some paperwork you can fill out and will guarantee you still have a job.
          • Did you know not all companies are covered by the FMLA? What do you suggest those people do?
            • They can start by bitching at Congress and holding their elected officials accountable. As opposed to what most people do, which is whine on Facebook. Yes, FMLA can be painful to navigate and doesn't cover everyone, but I've seen many people who were eligible for protection but never even thought about using it.
              • You're right, bitching at congress usually results in a speedy resolution to all problems............
              • They'll lose in primary elections, since once you're in the general it's a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Judging by the way the DNC quickly got the establishment favorite out in front that's not a problem.

                Our entire system is completely incapable of handling what's coming down the pike. Get ready for the consequences of our actions.
                • Please explain how the DNC conspired against Sanders in the 2020 primaries. It just sounds like Sanders' supports are looking for someone to blame and not recognizing the fact that his message just didn't catch on with enough voters.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by robinsonne ( 952701 )
            I don't know how universal this is (or how legal), but at my place of employment, you have to provide FMLA paperwork at least 10 business days in advance of the expected leave. (And it's unpaid leave anyways)
          • And many more are contactors. You have to be on a job for 6 months to get FMLA, but most Americans aren't technically employed that long. Gig and contract work is used explicitly to avoid those kind of benefits.

            We gutted decades of worker protections. It's about to bite is in the ass.

          • For how long? Unless you're in a "fire at will" state anyway where the employer can simply kick you out as he pleases, do you think it will take long for him to find a reason to kick you on the curb?

        • Correct. There's no such thing as a 2 week vacation.
          Totally impossible.
          And sick leave never ever exists, anywhere.

          Dude, if your job doesn't offer that as a minimum, GET A NEW JOB. We're in the best unemployment rate in half a century.
          There has never been a better time to job hop within our lifetime.

          But sure, complain away. That helps too.

          • Re: Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @09:46AM (#59814588) Journal

            It's not that it's impossible, or that it doesn't exist, it's that it's actually not the rule that some people think it is.

            I'm lucky in that I have a salaried position with paid 3 week vacation that I can take anytime at my discretion once per year or spread out over multiple days, and a generous sick-day policy.

            But I am very much aware that I am a lucky one.... most people do not have either of those things, and only receive their "vacation pay" at a specific time during the year, which they are expected to live on during their vacation, the timing for which can often be at the employer's discretion. If they the time they receive the vacation pay is too far from the time that they might otherwise take their vacation, the extra money will have been slowly eroded by expenses being ever-so-slightly higher than their income, and when they have to take their annual vacation it will be extremely tight financially.

            And "getting a new job" isn't automatic. Often it's nigh impossible to find better work than a job which already takes up much of your time, because you cannot be available for things like interviews during work hours without also losing that day's pay. Giving up that much when you are already a low income earner is a lot to ask for on a *chance* that you might get hired, when shitty as their job might be, it's still a whole lot better than not making anything, which is what could happen if their boss found out they were taking time off work (even if unpaid) to go to interviews.

            • I'm lucky in that I have a salaried position with paid 3 week vacation that I can take anytime at my discretion once per year or spread out over multiple days, and a generous sick-day policy.

              That's actually not that atypical. The average time off [bls.gov] for full-time workers in the U.S. is 7.6 paid holidays (per year), 8 paid sick days during your first year going up to 10 days after 10 years, and 8 paid vacation days your first year going up to 15 days after 15 years.*

              It also varies with type of job. Profes

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mark-t ( 151149 )

                While perhaps not uncommon, that's not the same thing as saying it's not atypical.

                Most low-income earners do not have the luxury of *any* paid time off other than what might be required by legislation in their jurisdiction, and there are an absolutely enormous number of low income earners.

          • Re: Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @10:13AM (#59814694) Homepage Journal

            "Dude, if your job doesn't offer that as a minimum, GET A NEW JOB. We're in the best unemployment rate in half a century."

            The unemployment rate is a lie. It is always a lie. And even putting aside the ways in which it is designed not to count people who want to be working but can't find a job, it doesn't tell the whole story. Because so many jobs pay less than a living wage, many people either have to have multiple jobs or are simply going ever-further into debt to make ends meet.

            Citing an unemployment rate which doesn't account for whether needs are met is a sign of a fallacious argument.

            • And even putting aside the ways in which it is designed not to count people who want to be working but can't find a job

              There are literally figures that take this into account as well including a published definition of how those figures are derived.

              But the sentiment of your post is correct. The problems in America are systematic. Workers are seen as a resource to bleed dry. Just because unemployment is low doesn't mean that there are jobs falling over themselves to offer you benefits that no one else gets. At best you're looking at a higher salary for being in demand, but frankly the idea that someone comes from nothing and

              • 7 weeks?

                Where do I move?

              • "There are literally figures that take this into account as well including a published definition of how those figures are derived."

                Right, like the U6 unemployment rate. But even that misses people. And it's not the rate reported by the media.

            • why aren't wages skyrocketing? Shouldn't supply and demand kick in? It's been "super low" and at "full employment" for at least 3 years now.

          • My job includes 25 days of vacation, not counting sick days. Of which I have however many I need. Paid.

            I'm not worried about myself. How many unemployed IT security researchers with 15+ years of experience and a background in finance and risk management do you know? And, could you introduce me to them, we're hiring pretty desperately. But then again, so is pretty much everyone.

            I'm worried about the people who don't have a skill set that gives them ultimate freedom.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spth ( 5126797 )

          You really think a lot of people can come back to work after 14 days and still have a job?

          Of course. If it is not their fault, and many people are affected, why would their employer fire them? After all, they got hired to do a job in the first place, that job doesn't just disappear within 14 days. Having the old employees come back is a lot less work and risk than firing them and hiring new ones.

          • and pregnant women. Training is tax deductible and you can often pay a lot less. You're thinking of the kinds of high skill jobs /.ers have. There's millions of low and mid skill jobs (e.g. ones you can be trained to do in 2-6 weeks). Companies will also do what they did in 2008, fire a bunch, and then make everyone left work harder.

            All of this is bad for workers. Given that the majority of people reading this are workers, well, the majority of people reading this should be concerned.
      • And plenty of American citizens do not. Your response feels a lot like "maybe if the poor would just stop being poor then they wouldn't be so poor!" Also bonus points for continuing the "Trump is a poor little victim" farce. He can't be both this strong, effective and powerful leader and a weak little bitch who gets constantly victimized...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Plenty of us have more that 14 days savings.

        Plenty only in the absolute sense and considering how many people there actually are. Not in any sense that it is true for most people. The reality is that most people today live exclusively from paycheque to paycheque, saving little to nothing. If an emergency happens, they could survive by making extreme cut-backs on expenses and using things like lines of credit they may have already had to stretch out the period they can survive on their last paycheque un

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "Many have an unused credit limit that would sustain them longer than that."

        You typically can't make mortgage payments with other forms of debt.

        • "Many have an unused credit limit that would sustain them longer than that."

          You typically can't make mortgage payments with other forms of debt.

          But you can take a portion of your credit limit as cash from your credit card, or write a check against it. Now and then I get such checks from my CC company.

          Of course, it's a bad way to borrow money, but it is possible.

      • Most of us couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency. Therefore the number of us who have more than 14 days' savings is not best described as "plenty".

        Many of us would find ourselves replaced if we didn't go to work for two weeks. The law doesn't prohibit such terminations.

      • "Plenty" isn't very optimistic. How much of these less than Plenty of people who cannot afford 14 days without support will last? 50% (~150 Million People), 5% (~15 Million People) 1% (~3 Million people).

        There are a lot of people in the United States, Small Percentages means a lot of damage.

        People who don't have a lot of money, cannot save a lot of money. That means if they out of work, that is good number of goods and services that they will not be buying. Which in turn goes all the way up the economy.

      • I think you're missing the point. At a minimum 40% do not. It is more likely to be 60% though. Furthermore most Americans have zero sick leave. They lose their jobs if they don't show up to work. And the economy is about to collapse, meaning they won't be getting new ones, and they know it. They're gonna go to work sick.
      • Does it seem like a good idea to you that people use up their savings because of a flu outbreak? What if there's another one next year? And maxing out credit cards is equally dumb.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skids ( 119237 )

          But that's the way things are done in the modern economy: do everything on credit, live beyond your means, and spend money whenever you think you're getting the better of someone else whether you need the thing you're buying or not.

          There are people in such plight that for them it's not such a shame to be highly leveraged, but there are a lot of people who could put themselves in a better position and yet instead elect to drop thousands on a vacation. And economists pretty much agree that it is this type of

          • their means are shrinking due to inflation. My kid just graduated. 4 year nursing degree from a major University. RN. She's going to make less without adjusting for inflation than an LPN did 20 years ago.

            Every year my pay goes up about 2% (and I'm one of the lucky ones). My basic expenses (food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, etc) go up about 4.5%. Yeah, TVs are cheaper, but I buy one of those ever 10 years, if that (the last one I got was a hand me down).

            Meanwhile inflation keeps chipping awa
    • If you look at the Job Openings and Labor Survey [bls.gov] published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 1.9 million people who were laid off or discharged last year. While some of them certainly could have found employment within a 14-day period, if your assumption was to be believed there would be a massive spike in the number of homeless. If just 25% of that 1.9 million were unable to get a job, a 40% chance of them becoming homeless would mean that almost 200,000 people would have wound up homeless. Inst

      • Working Homeless (Score:2, Informative)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        Their population is growing [parade.com]

        They usually don't stay homeless for very long, but there can be long term damage, especially if they have children.

        NY City is refusing to close their schools for the Corona virus because they have 100,000 homeless students, and they don't know how they'll get meals without schools.

        And then there's this women [curbed.com], who was homeless with Cancer.

        Homelessness is a _much_ bigger problem than anyone is talking about.

    • Almost nobody in America can go 14 days without working. Probably 40% would be homeless if they tried.

      What? You do understand that your first statement is contradicted by your second. You CLEARLY say that 60% of folks would keep their homes, so what exactly do you mean that 'nobody in America can go 14 days without working"?

      There are PLENTY of us who could weather a 14 day loss of income. Personally, I have enough leave to cover that and more, PLUS my company would do all it could to let me work from home as I was able. Then I have Long Term disability insurance that would kick in for %70 of my normal i

      • there are other repercussions besides homelessness. You might lose your house, but still be able to rent. You might get your car repossessed. You might default on a loan and have your credit wrecked for 7 years. You might lose a job offer when you fail a background check because of that default. You might skip needed medical care to save on co pays and die.

        Lots can happen, but homelessness is the first thing that came to my mind.

        • And YOU MIGHT have all the same things happen if a tornado comes through and wipes out your place of business.

          Yea, there are folks who cannot weather a rainy day financially, I just don't think it's as many as you think here. Unfortunately, there is NOTHING you and I can do about another persons lack of being prepared. Some are in this situation by their own hand, some couldn't help it. The latter need to be helped and the former need to be left to their own devices. However, we have no way of knowing

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by voss ( 52565 )

      Heres what should happen
      1) You develop symptoms and call a CDC number
      2) CDC sends someone to your home to test you and you test positive
      3) You call your employer and your employer allows you to stay home without touching your normal sick benefits because they get compensated by the federal government on the taxes (make it a tax credit)
      4) Your are compensated by a Federal fund similar to unemployment insurance and emergency credit line is given to you.
      5) Your house is quarantined for sickness + 14 days?

    • Almost no one? You're being disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say "most people in America", that is very likely to be true. And I'm not being nitpicky - it's not like 1% of Americans can go 14 days without working. Most salaried people could go 14 days easily, it's a big chunk of America.
  • They write: 101 out of every 10,000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine.

    So by recommending 14 days they let 101 people infect the rest of the population.

    • Re:101 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gilgaron ( 575091 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:49AM (#59814460)
      Generally, a small fraction of exposed people for any illness will by asymptomatic and contagious. Using statistics like this validates a 14 day window for slowing it down. The data only went to 28 days, but if you look at the shape of the curve is asymptotic so you'll never catch it all. Stopping an illness this contagious with no vaccine entirely would require a nationwide lockdown, which would be a disaster in and of itself. Ideally we slow it down enough that our medical infrastructure isn't overwhelmed but society stays functional.

    • The only realistic goal is to slow the spread. This does that. As long as we keep hospitals from being overrun we've done about as well as can be expected at this point. It can't be contained indefinitely.

  • Supergenius' Nephew in Charge. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:39AM (#59814430)

    Well, I don't know about you but I feel safe.

    I like this stuff. You know my uncle was a great person. He was at MIT. He taught at MIT for, I think, like, a record number of years. He was a great supergenius, Dr. John Trump.

    I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.

    Sucks to be all you other countries without super genius genetics in charge.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      Eh, we other countries fuck things up just the same.

      • But at least the leaders of other countries don't sound like complete fucking idiots when they speak. That quoted speech is really bad, it reminds me of the rambling bullshit that comes out of people's mouths when they are coming down off a stimulant bender.

      • Other countries like China, Iran and North Korea? I mean everyone else either successfully stopped/slowed it down (Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand) or is taking it seriously and implementing measures (Korea, Germany, Italy).

        The best way to stop it would've been to immediately seal borders and curfew everyone in impacted areas but that's rather extreme given the risk and nobody would do it preemptively. However, on one else is running around talking about how it'll magically go away in April or that the flu kil

        • Also sealing the borders would completely crash the economy of any nation except maybe North Korea (which is of course already an economic disaster). It's just the reality we have to live with that the world ia a connected place. It might be fine for a week or two, but then it'll all start to fall apart

    • Re:Supergenius' Nephew in Charge. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @09:42AM (#59814578) Homepage

      Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect. The problem is: once you have a certain amount of power, no one dares call you out. The doctors he's talking about presumably work for the government. No longer practicing doctors, just bureaucrats. And like all good bureaucrats everywhere, they are great at ass-kissing. No, dear Donald, you almost certainly don't understand a damned thing about epidemiology. Fooling yourself that you do is..foolish. Letting yourself be surrounded by yes-men is also not a great sign of leadership ability.

      Not that the D's have anyone better. Creepy Joe, with what looks like dementia? Money-is-free Bernie? Fauxahontas? OMG, Hillary? Get serious, I'd rather have Trump.

      Of course, Italy is showing us how things can really be screwed up.

      • Not really Dunning-Kruger isn't about people boasting that they're geniuses, but about people who who are average or below who think they are above average at things because they don't realize how little they know. Trump instead I think is stuck in a permanent positive feedback loop which started at an early age - he's never wrong because no one has ever told him he's wrong except for his "enemies". His biggest fault in all of this is ego, every time he talks about anything it's always about him, how he's

      • Of course, Italy is showing us how things can really be screwed up.
        Italy actually did not screw anything up. They reacted extremely quickly and extremely strict, even harsh.

        Why the sickness develops in every country very different is at the moment a mystery. Well, except for the uS, obviously, there is no mystery.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fintux ( 798480 )

          Why the sickness develops in every country very different is at the moment a mystery. Well, except for the uS, obviously, there is no mystery.

          It's not really a mystery, it's just that different countries are in a different spot on the curve (it is exponential, so numbers at first seem low until they suddenly become unmanageable). Italy just got an unfortunate head start. Pretty much all of the data points to a similar fate in other affected countries. The only notable difference seems to be Japan where the spread has been slower. I saw a good graph about this where the cases were aligned and they were indeed following the same track, but unfortun

    • I agree. Is that why Trump didn't know people died from the flu?

      President Donald Trump said that he didn't know people died of the flu.

      "When I was hearing the amount of people that died with the flu, I was shocked to hear it," Trump said. "Over the last, long period of time when people have the flu, you have an average of 36,000 people dying. I’ve never heard those numbers, I would’ve been shocked. I would have said, ‘Does anybody die of the flu?’ I didn’t know people died from the flu."

      Great to see such a genius in charge. People won't die from COVID-19... nobody even dies from the flu (according to the genius). He gets it. It's his natural ability.

      That said, this bit is a bit strange:

      Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.

      Done what?

    • The GHS [ghsindex.org] says America is the best prepared of any nation for a large outbreak...

      The reason you can joke is because fundamentally you are safer because of Trump.

      • Why, because he's built up our infrastructure and response teams since he took office? That was something he built? Sorry, but I don't give credit to people for not breaking stuff.

  • How long until all clear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TJEx ( 3343267 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:55AM (#59814478)
    The next answer they have to find out is how long is the average infection time. After someone tests positive in the 14 days period and gets mild symptoms that don't require hospitalization, how long before they will test negative.

  • The peak is yet to come (Score:4, Informative)

    by dargaud ( 518470 ) <[ten.duagradg] [ta] [2todhsals]> on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @10:22AM (#59814728) Homepage
    Read this [imgur.com]. The summary is that the peak is expected around JULY !

  • Most contagious in first few days before symptoms (Score:3)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @11:35AM (#59814970)

    Research report this morning says that people are most contagious in the first few days after infection and before they develop symptoms. So this could explain a lot of "non-symptomatic" contact infection.
    Also, once symptoms have cleared, not contagious.

  • Nonshedding after 10 days (Score:3)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @02:22PM (#59815606) Homepage Journal

    What's more important is that there's a new study out from Germany yesterday, confirming that after 10 days of quarantine most people who were mildly symptomatic are no longer shedding viable particles. A large subset of those were non-contagious after 8 days. This is surprisingly better than most had feared.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Close