Skip to main content

What percentage of people remain positive after a diagnosis of Covid-19?

The recent change in isolation policy for people in England was based on a modelling study by Bays et al which showed that “after the 5th day after a positive test, an estimated 31% of persons remain infectious”.

Reference:  Bays D, Whiteley T, Pindar M, et al. Mitigating isolation: The use of rapid antigen testing to reduce the impact of self-isolation periods. medRxiv 2021:2021.12.23.21268326. doi: 10.1101/2021.12.23.21268326 

Bays et al Table 3: Percentages (rounded to integer) of people who are still infectious after each day according to their disease profile

 

Day

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Still infectious (%)

100

92

75

58

43

31

22

16

11

7

5

3

2

2

1

No-longer infectious (%)

0.0

8

25

42

57

69

78

84

89

93

95

97

98

98

99

 

Bays et al Table 4: Output from the model of the effect of the considered scenarios on disease release into the community (measured in three different ways) and the self-isolation in addition to that which is necessary to contain disease spread. Intervals are the 2.5 and 97.5 quantiles from the simulations.2

 

Policy

Released infectious (%)

Mean time a released person is infectious for (hours)

Mean excess isolation per person (hours)

7-day isolation

15.8% [11.9 - 21.0]

62.3 [56.5 - 69.2]

76.8 [67.2 - 84.0]

10-day isolation

5.1% [3.4 - 7.6]

59.3 [53.5 - 65.6]

141.6 [129.6 - 151.2]

14-day isolation

1.0% [0.6 - 1.8]

57.1 [51.4 - 63.1]

235.2 [220.8 - 247.2]

10-day isolation, or 1 negative tests from day 7

9.2% [6.5 - 12.8]

61.1 [55.3 - 67.5]

79.2 [69.6 - 86.4]

10-day isolation, or 2 negative tests from day 6

6.2% [4.2 - 9.0]

60.0 [53.9 - 66.3]

81.6 [72.0 - 88.8]

14-day isolation, or 2 negative tests from day 6

4.1% [2.6 - 6.0]

61.3 [55.8 - 67.7]

69.6 [64.8 - 74.4]

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...