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...

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...

Protecting Young People from Meningococcal B Disease: The NHS Targeted Vaccination Programme

Meningococcal group B (MenB) infections are rare but can have devastating consequences. The decision to offer a targeted two-dose vaccination programme to Year 13 students and young people entering university or residential further education reflects concerns about recent outbreaks of meningococcal disease and the higher risk of transmission when large numbers of young adults mix closely for the first time in shared accommodation. The MenB vaccine has a well-established safety record, and evidence from the UK infant immunisation programme has shown substantial reductions in disease among vaccinated children. A targeted programme for those entering higher-risk settings is therefore a reasonable precautionary measure while further evidence is gathered on whether the recent increase in clusters represents a temporary fluctuation in disease patterns or a more sustained change in the epidemiology of MenB infection. The success of the programme will depend on achieving high uptake and ensuri...