Asked to self-isolate, what would you do?

[vagrantbrain]

The interesting thing to me is that far and away the most popular option was a rigid adherence to the rule regardless of anything else, 42%.

Whilst 58% would take into account other factors in order to make their decision.

Perhaps that shows that 2 out of 5 follow rules just because they are rules, whilst 3 out of 5 make more independent judgements.

I'm one of the 42% because I accept the fact that I know far less about the coronavirus issue than all of the scientists and politicians trying to bring the situation under control. The other 58% may think that they know better.

That implies that 42% of the population believe experts. Could well be true.

But individual circumstances surely skew the issue one way or the other. It seems imprudent to not even try to determine whether your personal risk profile is greater or less than the average the experts determined. For instance we already know that age, health, race and whether you have had it and recovered are all factors. Why ignore those in favour of blindly following an edict?

Age health and race appear to be factors in how ill you might become. They don't (that i'm aware of) affect your ability to pass it on to other people if you've got it, which is the whole point of self-isolation: To reduce the risk of YOU passing it on to someone else.

[Lootman]

I'm one of the 42% because I accept the fact that I know far less about the coronavirus issue than all of the scientists and politicians trying to bring the situation under control. The other 58% may think that they know better.

That implies that 42% of the population believe experts. Could well be true.

But individual circumstances surely skew the issue one way or the other. It seems imprudent to not even try to determine whether your personal risk profile is greater or less than the average the experts determined. For instance we already know that age, health, race and whether you have had it and recovered are all factors. Why ignore those in favour of blindly following an edict?

Age health and race appear to be factors in how ill you might become. They don't (that i'm aware of) affect your ability to pass it on to other people if you've got it, which is the whole point of self-isolation: To reduce the risk of YOU passing it on to someone else.

But the issue of whether I can pass it on surely depends on the probability that I have it in the first place.

[vagrantbrain]

That implies that 42% of the population believe experts. Could well be true.

But individual circumstances surely skew the issue one way or the other. It seems imprudent to not even try to determine whether your personal risk profile is greater or less than the average the experts determined. For instance we already know that age, health, race and whether you have had it and recovered are all factors. Why ignore those in favour of blindly following an edict?

Age health and race appear to be factors in how ill you might become. They don't (that i'm aware of) affect your ability to pass it on to other people if you've got it, which is the whole point of self-isolation: To reduce the risk of YOU passing it on to someone else.

But the issue of whether I can pass it on surely depends on the probability that I have it in the first place.

True, but AFAIK the probability of having it is related to the amount of time you've spent close to someone who has it, not your risk of serious complications from it. Teenagers and kids still pass it on even though they may well be asymptomatic.

[UncleEbenezer]

The decent thing would be to self isolate although I'm not sure how many people would.

The interesting thing to me is that far and away the most popular option was a rigid adherence to the rule regardless of anything else, 42%.

Whilst 58% would take into account other factors in order to make their decision.

Perhaps that shows that 2 out of 5 follow rules just because they are rules, whilst 3 out of 5 make more independent judgements.

I'm one of the 42% because I accept the fact that I know far less about the coronavirus issue than all of the scientists and politicians trying to bring the situation under control. The other 58% may think that they know better.

--kiloran

But do you even know what self-isolation means in this context?

I don't. If they expect me to stay home and never go outdoors, I couldn't cope with that. If they just mean keeping well clear (as in 2m) from anyone else while out, I'm fine with that. At least, if someone is doing my food shopping without me having to do battle over delivery slots.

Too much that's unclear, too many unknowns. Even without the question of a trip to Barnard Castle.

[Alaric]

But the issue of whether I can pass it on surely depends on the probability that I have it in the first place.

The problem being that you don't actually know one way or the other. Abandoning testing of all possible suspects in the middle of March leaves it uncertain.

That's surely the biggest problem. If like a cold or influenza, you know when you are suffering, a quarantine for just the sufferers could work, leaving all other activities unaffected.

[servodude]

But the issue of whether I can pass it on surely depends on the probability that I have it in the first place.

The problem being that you don't actually know one way or the other. Abandoning testing of all possible suspects in the middle of March leaves it uncertain.
.

You do know that the probability of you having it is higher than it was before you were told
Funny things probabilities
-sd

[JohnB]

There are likely to be many mistakes in a jury-rigged system. The infected person could make mistakes naming their contacts and contact periods, the tracers more mistakes assigning vague descriptions to people.

"You must isolate because you were on the 61 bus on the 14th as it drove through Lewisham". "But I got off in Bromley, and caught it on the 13th"

You might hope to get a full justification from a nurse you could discuss, but is more likely to be a bald text message from an algorithm.

[servodude]

There are likely to be many mistakes in a jury-rigged system. The infected person could make mistakes naming their contacts and contact periods, the tracers more mistakes assigning vague descriptions to people.

"You must isolate because you were on the 61 bus on the 14th as it drove through Lewisham". "But I got off in Bromley, and caught it on the 13th"

You might hope to get a full justification from a nurse you could discuss, but is more likely to be a bald text message from an algorithm.

It doesn't need to be perfect; which is just as well because it can't be
- for it to not help it would need to be as good as doing nothing
- so as long as any contacts are valid and informed it is helping

It should form part of an ecosystem where lots of bits of information come together to try to stop uniformed spread
e.g. I'm off to the pub next weekend... and we've to provide contact details for everyone in the party before we go. Now we could lie when we give them.. but what's the point of that, it's for everyone's benefit

-sd

[sg31]

I wrote."The decent thing would be to self isolate although I'm not sure how many people would."

I think posters on TLF are more intelligent that the general run of people in this country. If you are questioning the need for self isolation if told to do so by a contract tracer or app then I assume that the same will go for the rest of the population, maybe more so.

I'm not particularly patriotic, I only trust polititians to do what is in their own interests but I think this situation is now getting out of control. In the far east China brings in draconian lock dawn rules, so does South Korea, Vietnam goes way over the top before they have their first death from SARS-CoV-19, they are well in control of the virus. Their populations do as they are told, they've had serious epidemics before, they know the score, they solved the problem by and large.

In Europe, the UK specifically and in the USA, we question everything, do the rules apply to me, such and such means I'm an exception, I don't need to wear a mask. Our polititians don't inspire confidence, we get mixed messages, do as I say not as I do.

I said " I'm not sure how many would". I'm sorry to say i've got a pretty good idea how many.......not enough.

[dealtn]

But the issue of whether I can pass it on surely depends on the probability that I have it in the first place.

The problem being that you don't actually know one way or the other. Abandoning testing of all possible suspects in the middle of March leaves it uncertain.

That's surely the biggest problem. If like a cold or influenza, you know when you are suffering, a quarantine for just the sufferers could work, leaving all other activities unaffected.

The common cold can be a coronavirus (a different one), and presumably you could be a carrier, infectious, and asymptotic in that instance too.

[Lootman]

In Europe, the UK specifically and in the USA, we question everything, do the rules apply to me, such and such means I'm an exception, I don't need to wear a mask.

I agree with the distinction you draw between places like Asia, where people are happy to be rule-bound. And the West where we have a more individualistic culture.

That said, if you are raised in the West then it is very hard to undo that individualism and become Asian in mentality. It is our first instinct to question what those "above" us say. The very notion of a democracy means that we are governed in a bottom-up manner, or should be anyway.

And hasn't that same individualism brought us incredible gains? When this is all done with I don't think that many Brits or Yanks will be emigrating to Vietnam or South Korea on the grounds that they were better at this than we were. Or because we have discovered the joys of comformity. Freedom always comes at a price.

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
Thread and poll now closed. Please post any further posts on this matter on the main thread.