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...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...