I'm so confused by the self-isolation rules!

poppy12345

LegalNim said:

Thrugelmir said:

LegalNim said:

 He obviously could not have caught it from this colleague (due to the timing of symptoms) but they may have caught it from the same third party or something? 

Covid can survive on some hard surfaces for up to 3 days. 

Yes, but my husband saw the colleague on Thursday at around 1pm and developed a cough around 4pm on Thursday. The colleague also developed a cough that afternoon/evening. So, due to the timing, he did not catch it when he saw him at 1pm because you don't develop symptoms within three hours.

He could have caught it before then..

LegalNim

poppy12345 said:

LegalNim said:

Thrugelmir said:

LegalNim said:

 He obviously could not have caught it from this colleague (due to the timing of symptoms) but they may have caught it from the same third party or something? 

Covid can survive on some hard surfaces for up to 3 days. 

Yes, but my husband saw the colleague on Thursday at around 1pm and developed a cough around 4pm on Thursday. The colleague also developed a cough that afternoon/evening. So, due to the timing, he did not catch it when he saw him at 1pm because you don't develop symptoms within three hours.

He could have caught it before then..

Yes. Like, I said "he did not catch it when he saw him at 1pm". It's a direct quote. You highlighted it. He obviously caught it BEORE he saw him at 1pm in order to show symptoms by 4pm. I really don't understand what everyone is so confused about. 

coachman12

What this thread DOES make clear is that the Govt have made a real mess of explaining the latest guidelines/legal provisions. So many people who I regard as pretty smart (online !) don't understand the latest rules. Hell, I don't !
We have "The Rule of 6" which is silly in its application and exceptions and non-clarity. Who chose the figure 6 ? Not SAGE scientists-----this smacks of political desperation in trying to stop the worrying new spike by stopping the most ridiculous easing measures which had been due to come into force. But it is all too confusing. We have an R figure of 1.2 nationally ( and much higher in a lot of places), we have towns like Glasgow and Birmingham ( with Liverpool set to join) which are in lockdown as in March/April. If 3 or 4 of the biggest cities in Britain are in lockdown, why on earth is the Govt trying to pretend it can keep to an easing policy , except for a few places ( when those few places are huge) ? 
With the R figure so high and the generally accepted view that colder weather will make this winter the most dangerous in history ( the virus thrives on such temperatures, as does flu which could be a real killer this winter because there are so many elderly people who normally have flu jabs now too scared to go to a doctors' surgery ----why should they risk Covid for a flu jab?).
That period when the virus was at its peak last Spring, when we had daily press conferences and when I believe we all understood the simple rules, when Govt decisions were "science-led" and non-political and brought the virus under control------all that seems to have been thrown away by irresponsibly letting the R rate increase to a point where we are seeing something approaching 2,000 new cases now again every day. Stuff the "Boris Rule of 6"-----let's get back to whatever the leading epedemiologists, scientists and doctors dictate. Yes, I know the economic consequences and I know that SOME young people think "I'm OK, so who cares about my gran and grandad" because they want a rave. But I do believe the NHS will be overwhelmed during the flu season when Covid will hit even harder unless the sort of science-led action we saw last spring is put into force again now before it is too late. Sorry, perhaps that should be on the "rant" forum. But I thank 
LegalNim for highlighting the confusion ( added to in this thread) about what the Govt is telling us now ( in an incomprehensible format for so many people ). BTW, LegalNim, I do hope your husband is well and that somebody thinks about tracking down the original source of his and his colleague's symptoms.

theoretica

LegalNim said:

theoretica said:

Where does it say 'symptoms and positive test'? Everything I can see applies if someone in your family has either - or both.  ie this applies for people with a positive test and it applies for people with symptoms.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treatment/how-long-to-self-isolate/?fbclid=IwAR1yttE5THs_RLDIQrdaZ5eM-oB17SoXIjcFm-Pvf5NsPAnPpWkXXoFG05w On this page, under "If you live with someone who has symptoms or tested positive". I got mixed up thinking it was the government website, it was the NHS website.

Is this the bit causing the confusion?  It is a list - you should isolate if your husband has symptoms and tested positive, OR if he has symptoms and the test result was unclear OR if he has symptoms and doesn't (yet) have a test. 

You should self-isolate for 14 days if you live with (or are in a support bubble with) someone who:

• has symptoms of coronavirus and tested positive, had an unclear result or did not have a test

LegalNim

theoretica said:

LegalNim said:

theoretica said:

Where does it say 'symptoms and positive test'? Everything I can see applies if someone in your family has either - or both.  ie this applies for people with a positive test and it applies for people with symptoms.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treatment/how-long-to-self-isolate/?fbclid=IwAR1yttE5THs_RLDIQrdaZ5eM-oB17SoXIjcFm-Pvf5NsPAnPpWkXXoFG05w On this page, under "If you live with someone who has symptoms or tested positive". I got mixed up thinking it was the government website, it was the NHS website.

Is this the bit causing the confusion?  It is a list - you should isolate if your husband has symptoms and tested positive, OR if he has symptoms and the test result was unclear OR if he has symptoms and doesn't (yet) have a test. 

You should self-isolate for 14 days if you live with (or are in a support bubble with) someone who:

• has symptoms of coronavirus and tested positive, had an unclear result or did not have a test

Thank you. Unfortunately, it doesn't say "doesn't yet have a test" it says "did not have a test". Those are two completely different things. To me "did not have a test" means did not take a test within the five day period where a test can work and so cannot be tested accurately, "doesn't yet have a test" would mean they are awaiting their test or test results. 
Does anyone know what happens if his test comes back negative? His work have said that even if his test is negative then he still cannot come back to work - does this mean we all continue to isolate after a negative result?

Dr_Crypto

This is what track and trace are supposed to be doing.
My understanding is that as long as the husband remains well the rest of the family don’t have to isolate. However, if the husband develops symptoms or tests positive then the household does have to isolate.
I’m not sure if the husband needs to get a test or simply isolate.