Another Coronavirus/COVID-19 custody question
April 3, 2020 11:08 PM Subscribe
I've read the earlier post about this issue but my situation is slightly different and I'd like an outside perspective. I'm one of the parents in the custody arrangement but I'll phrase the question as neutrally as possible to avoid bias.
Household A consists of Parent A and their longtime partner, Partner A. The child is at Household A approximately 30% of the time
Household B consists of Parent B. The child is at Household B approximately 70% of the time.
The child of Parents A and B is 13 years old and is neuro- and physically typical, requiring no special accommodations. The child seems equally comfortable at both houses. The child has moderate asthma which is well-managed with preventative medication. As a result of the asthma, the child seems especially susceptible to pneumonia and has been treated for it multiple times in the past.
Partner A has a job providing a type of therapy that requires that they physically interact with children. The center where Partner A would normally provide services has been closed due to Coronavirus but one of the clients still wishes for Partner A to work with one of the client's children. Partner A has agreed to provide these services at the client's house, where the client and her 3 children live. The services would be for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for the foreseeable future. The client takes the Coronavirus threat seriously and is taking all reasonable precautions to stay safe. Remote treatment is not an option, nor is postponing the treatment.
Parent B has concerns about Partner A having regular exposure to an outside family, which would then expose Household A, the child, and eventually Parent B.
Both parents are open to a modified parenting plan to help mitigate risk. What is the safest option? The nuclear option would be for the child to only stay over at Parent B's house until either the virus threat passes or 14 days after Partner A's last exposure to the client. The child would find it difficult to be away from either parent for that long, but could adjust with regular video chats, etc. Could we mitigate the risk by alternating 5 days at Household A, 5 days at Household B, and regularly checking for virus symptoms? Or should we alternate every 10 days? 14 days? Obviously if symptoms present then the child would stay at whichever household they are in for a full 14 days in order to help prevent infecting the other household. But now that studies show that sometimes symptoms don't present at all, especially in children, then that strategy may not be entirely effective either. What should we do?
Household A consists of Parent A and their longtime partner, Partner A. The child is at Household A approximately 30% of the time
Household B consists of Parent B. The child is at Household B approximately 70% of the time.
The child of Parents A and B is 13 years old and is neuro- and physically typical, requiring no special accommodations. The child seems equally comfortable at both houses. The child has moderate asthma which is well-managed with preventative medication. As a result of the asthma, the child seems especially susceptible to pneumonia and has been treated for it multiple times in the past.
Partner A has a job providing a type of therapy that requires that they physically interact with children. The center where Partner A would normally provide services has been closed due to Coronavirus but one of the clients still wishes for Partner A to work with one of the client's children. Partner A has agreed to provide these services at the client's house, where the client and her 3 children live. The services would be for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for the foreseeable future. The client takes the Coronavirus threat seriously and is taking all reasonable precautions to stay safe. Remote treatment is not an option, nor is postponing the treatment.
Parent B has concerns about Partner A having regular exposure to an outside family, which would then expose Household A, the child, and eventually Parent B.
Both parents are open to a modified parenting plan to help mitigate risk. What is the safest option? The nuclear option would be for the child to only stay over at Parent B's house until either the virus threat passes or 14 days after Partner A's last exposure to the client. The child would find it difficult to be away from either parent for that long, but could adjust with regular video chats, etc. Could we mitigate the risk by alternating 5 days at Household A, 5 days at Household B, and regularly checking for virus symptoms? Or should we alternate every 10 days? 14 days? Obviously if symptoms present then the child would stay at whichever household they are in for a full 14 days in order to help prevent infecting the other household. But now that studies show that sometimes symptoms don't present at all, especially in children, then that strategy may not be entirely effective either. What should we do?
Assuming that Parent B has less interaction with the outside world than Parent A (that is implied but not explicit), the nuclear option is the safest option.
Anything else would not make a meaningful difference.
posted by NotLost at 11:41 PM on April 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
Anything else would not make a meaningful difference.
posted by NotLost at 11:41 PM on April 3, 2020 [13 favorites]
I do not know about Partner A. How long have Parent A and Partner A been together? Does Partner A have their family nearby?
To me, as a divorced father and a child of divorce, the goal would be to be least disruptive to the children. That to me means keeping to the current parenting plan. To mitigate the risks of Partner A visiting outside group, I would consider if Partner A could make alternative living arrangements for a while.
If I were Parent A, I am being forced into a decision between child and Partner A. My gf of 3 years stated to me early on that if I am ever faced with a choice between my kids and her, explain it to her and pick the kids.
With a severe lack of information about everyone, I do not know if asking Partner A to sacrifice by not taking the job for the good of their partner, Parent As child.
Having said that, I do not know how practical it would be to accomplish it. But, I would consider ways to keep the parenting plan that may not be obvious or conventional.
I could see Parent B thinking Partner A is being selfish. I could see Parent A thinking that Parent B is overreacting to the risk of child getting the 'rona.
It is a tough choice. I would try to take the child out of the middle of the decision while putting their interests at the front.
posted by AugustWest at 12:04 AM on April 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
To me, as a divorced father and a child of divorce, the goal would be to be least disruptive to the children. That to me means keeping to the current parenting plan. To mitigate the risks of Partner A visiting outside group, I would consider if Partner A could make alternative living arrangements for a while.
If I were Parent A, I am being forced into a decision between child and Partner A. My gf of 3 years stated to me early on that if I am ever faced with a choice between my kids and her, explain it to her and pick the kids.
With a severe lack of information about everyone, I do not know if asking Partner A to sacrifice by not taking the job for the good of their partner, Parent As child.
Having said that, I do not know how practical it would be to accomplish it. But, I would consider ways to keep the parenting plan that may not be obvious or conventional.
I could see Parent B thinking Partner A is being selfish. I could see Parent A thinking that Parent B is overreacting to the risk of child getting the 'rona.
It is a tough choice. I would try to take the child out of the middle of the decision while putting their interests at the front.
posted by AugustWest at 12:04 AM on April 4, 2020 [10 favorites]
If Household B can seriously isolate, that's clearly the safest choice, and (maybe I'm a scaredy cat but) that's the only option I'd consider with if I had an immunocompromised child, as you do.
Partner A isn't just having casual contact with the outside world; they're having sustained contact with another family in their living space. Even if the client is trying to do their best, you don't know what other risks they are having to take that may increase Client Household's exposure risk and thus the risk for everyone in Household A.
posted by ktkt at 12:09 AM on April 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Partner A isn't just having casual contact with the outside world; they're having sustained contact with another family in their living space. Even if the client is trying to do their best, you don't know what other risks they are having to take that may increase Client Household's exposure risk and thus the risk for everyone in Household A.
posted by ktkt at 12:09 AM on April 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
I concur with AugustWest on all points, except for the shortening of Corona to 'rona, there is just no need.
If partner A can excuse themselves from the scenario, that would be the best option. Let the child spend time with both parents to keep these stressful times, slightly less stressful.
posted by wile e at 12:35 AM on April 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
If partner A can excuse themselves from the scenario, that would be the best option. Let the child spend time with both parents to keep these stressful times, slightly less stressful.
posted by wile e at 12:35 AM on April 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
and regularly checking for virus symptoms? ... But now that studies show that sometimes symptoms don't present at all, especially in children, then that strategy may not be entirely effective either.
Numerous medical orgs have been very firm that asymptomatic people can spread covid-19.
You need to maintain a physical distance between the child and Parent A until 14 days after the last encounter with a stranger, so that the child isn't exposed to a lethal virus while Parent A is asymptomatic.
In the meantime, lots of video chats, and maybe find new things to do together like online gaming or paired movie watchingsomething.
If you think about worse-case scenarios for a bit, the bad scenarios are utterly horrible.
1) A infects the child, the child dies.
2) A infects the child, the child suffers a prolonged illness and comes out of it with reduced lung capacity.
3) A infects the child, the child infects parent B, who then dies/suffers and survives, child is traumatized.
Parent A and child can suck it up for a number of months if they have to.
Speaking as a child of divorce, parenting plans and regular structure are good, but even better is not exposing immunocompromised children to lethal viruses.
Maybe afterwards you can do some balancing so Parent A gets some extra chunks of time with the child.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:08 AM on April 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Numerous medical orgs have been very firm that asymptomatic people can spread covid-19.
You need to maintain a physical distance between the child and Parent A until 14 days after the last encounter with a stranger, so that the child isn't exposed to a lethal virus while Parent A is asymptomatic.
In the meantime, lots of video chats, and maybe find new things to do together like online gaming or paired movie watchingsomething.
If you think about worse-case scenarios for a bit, the bad scenarios are utterly horrible.
1) A infects the child, the child dies.
2) A infects the child, the child suffers a prolonged illness and comes out of it with reduced lung capacity.
3) A infects the child, the child infects parent B, who then dies/suffers and survives, child is traumatized.
Parent A and child can suck it up for a number of months if they have to.
Speaking as a child of divorce, parenting plans and regular structure are good, but even better is not exposing immunocompromised children to lethal viruses.
Maybe afterwards you can do some balancing so Parent A gets some extra chunks of time with the child.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:08 AM on April 4, 2020 [13 favorites]
Response by poster: Thank you for the thoughtful responses so far. To clarify:
Partner A has no other temporary housing options and will continue to live in Household A.
Both parents have been isolating in their respective houses, leaving only for essential shopping.
posted by mezzanayne at 1:16 AM on April 4, 2020
Partner A has no other temporary housing options and will continue to live in Household A.
Both parents have been isolating in their respective houses, leaving only for essential shopping.
posted by mezzanayne at 1:16 AM on April 4, 2020
If the child was handed a jar of one hundred jelly beans, and he could choose one at random to eat, would you be ok knowing that three of them was poisoned? Even if he really really liked jelly beans? Letting the child stay with you is like a risk of 3 poisoned beans. If both households had same minimal exposure then it's like 2 poisoned beans, and staying only at one house is like having only 1 poisoned bean, you cut the possibilities for exposure in half when kid does not bounce between households.
posted by Sophont at 1:47 AM on April 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Sophont at 1:47 AM on April 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
> Both parents have been isolating in their respective houses, leaving only for essential shopping.
You don't have perfect information or control over what's happening in the client's household and what the three kids are up to there. If one of the other kids there goes stir-crazy or gets careless and gets infected out of eyeshot of the client (in the months and months that this is going to take), it's asymptomatic client-kid-Z -> asymptomatic Parent-A -> your child.
I mean, in NYC they're using forklifts to load the bodies onto the refrigerated trucks. In Italy they're using army trucks to take the coffins out to the cemeteries.
Your kid and Parent-A can survive physical distancing for several months. Compared to your kid ending up in the hospital where neither of you can visit them.
I mean, if you want, you can call your child's pediatrician or something, if you want to them to lay this out in clinical, stark terms. They'd say "if this was my kid, they'd be staying with my ex until this blows over, so that they don't die when their lungs turn to snot or when their heart shuts down from the cytokine storm."
You're trying to preserve normalcy while the world has gone wonky for a while. In Wuhan, NYC, or Italy, parents wouldn't be asking this at this point.
The kid needs to shelter in place. Your kid could die or lose a chunk of lung capacity because client child Z meets up with playmates while the client takes a midday nap.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:52 AM on April 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
You don't have perfect information or control over what's happening in the client's household and what the three kids are up to there. If one of the other kids there goes stir-crazy or gets careless and gets infected out of eyeshot of the client (in the months and months that this is going to take), it's asymptomatic client-kid-Z -> asymptomatic Parent-A -> your child.
I mean, in NYC they're using forklifts to load the bodies onto the refrigerated trucks. In Italy they're using army trucks to take the coffins out to the cemeteries.
Your kid and Parent-A can survive physical distancing for several months. Compared to your kid ending up in the hospital where neither of you can visit them.
I mean, if you want, you can call your child's pediatrician or something, if you want to them to lay this out in clinical, stark terms. They'd say "if this was my kid, they'd be staying with my ex until this blows over, so that they don't die when their lungs turn to snot or when their heart shuts down from the cytokine storm."
You're trying to preserve normalcy while the world has gone wonky for a while. In Wuhan, NYC, or Italy, parents wouldn't be asking this at this point.
The kid needs to shelter in place. Your kid could die or lose a chunk of lung capacity because client child Z meets up with playmates while the client takes a midday nap.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:52 AM on April 4, 2020 [8 favorites]
The asthma and history of pneumonia makes this a single option situation in my eyes. The risk is just too great. A lot of people are having to be away from loved ones right now. It's hard, but with video visits any making an effort to be in close touch, it's doable.
posted by quince at 2:19 AM on April 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by quince at 2:19 AM on April 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
You can even do child/parent-visits-on-porch/in garden, chats with Parent A through big glass window on phone.
Just, nothing where there's the chance of infection with a lethal virus.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:28 AM on April 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Just, nothing where there's the chance of infection with a lethal virus.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:28 AM on April 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
The kid should not be in physical contact with household A while this relationship with the client family is ongoing, and they’re old enough to understand why a disruption to the usual parenting plan is necessary. They should be with parent B 100% of the time for the foreseeable future, with frequent phone/video calls and perhaps stuff like no-contact porch visits if possible.
I suppose the really oddball sitcom solution is for Partner A to stay in House A, and Parent A to go live at House B if they have a guest room. But that seems really hard on everyone and exploring whether Partner A can find other options re: work and/or housing seems more sensible
posted by Stacey at 4:37 AM on April 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
I suppose the really oddball sitcom solution is for Partner A to stay in House A, and Parent A to go live at House B if they have a guest room. But that seems really hard on everyone and exploring whether Partner A can find other options re: work and/or housing seems more sensible
posted by Stacey at 4:37 AM on April 4, 2020 [7 favorites]
I live in London and this week we had news of a 13 year old boy who died in hospital due to Covid-19. No underlying health issues as far as they can tell.
Keep your son away from Household A for as long as the client remains their client, and for an additional 14 days after. Your son will survive, emphasis on survive.
posted by like_neon at 5:10 AM on April 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Keep your son away from Household A for as long as the client remains their client, and for an additional 14 days after. Your son will survive, emphasis on survive.
posted by like_neon at 5:10 AM on April 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
My friend is in a very similar situation. They chose the nuclear option. She wrote an article about it. It’s working well.
posted by kate blank at 6:24 AM on April 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by kate blank at 6:24 AM on April 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
There is no part time with this. Because people can be asymptomatic and still be contagious, the child is either isolated from the household or is all-in, even if they're only there every other week, one day, whatever. It's all or nothing.
And since the child has asthma, this takes the risk from a gamble to unacceptable. Any contact with Household A is dangerous.
I know people who have "quarantined" two households together--basically treating two houses as one household for quarantine purposes, where the people move freely between the two but are isolated to everyone else (except unavoidable supply runs). This is slightly riskier than one household, since you have more "touches" with the outside world, but it can be done.
But you're not talking about two households, you're talking about three. And the third one is not part of your family unit, so you don't know how often they're shopping, what other services they're getting in-home.
Essentially, Household A is not isolating or social distancing, so you can't have an asthmatic kid visit Household A at all.
posted by gideonfrog at 7:14 AM on April 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
And since the child has asthma, this takes the risk from a gamble to unacceptable. Any contact with Household A is dangerous.
I know people who have "quarantined" two households together--basically treating two houses as one household for quarantine purposes, where the people move freely between the two but are isolated to everyone else (except unavoidable supply runs). This is slightly riskier than one household, since you have more "touches" with the outside world, but it can be done.
But you're not talking about two households, you're talking about three. And the third one is not part of your family unit, so you don't know how often they're shopping, what other services they're getting in-home.
Essentially, Household A is not isolating or social distancing, so you can't have an asthmatic kid visit Household A at all.
posted by gideonfrog at 7:14 AM on April 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I agree with everybody saying the child should stay FT with Parent B and not have contact with A for the time being.
I also think that, given the child's vulnerability, it might make sense for Parent A to do the grocery shopping for B, with a no-contact drop-off. Having Parent A actively supporting the kid's safety in that way would be a good thing in & of itself, and will help Parent A and the kid feel emotionally close while they need to be physically apart.
posted by Susan PG at 7:22 AM on April 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
I also think that, given the child's vulnerability, it might make sense for Parent A to do the grocery shopping for B, with a no-contact drop-off. Having Parent A actively supporting the kid's safety in that way would be a good thing in & of itself, and will help Parent A and the kid feel emotionally close while they need to be physically apart.
posted by Susan PG at 7:22 AM on April 4, 2020 [18 favorites]
I also think that, given the child's vulnerability, it might make sense for Parent A to do the grocery shopping for B, with a no-contact drop-off. Having Parent A actively supporting the kid's safety in that way would be a good thing in & of itself, and will help Parent A and the kid feel emotionally close while they need to be physically apart.
posted by Susan PG
This. What is most fair is what is safest for the child. If the child gets sick and is seriously ill with the virus and there is any probability that Parent A infected them, Parent A will be extremely unhappy, in a way no parent ever wants to be. Basically, unthinkable pain and guilt. Anything either parent can do to protect Parent A from that horror is a good plan, even if the non-negotiable need to protect the child wasn't already paramount.
Child should live with Parent B and Parent A should console themself with the knowledge that they are sacrificing their feelings and needs for the child and continuing to bring in an income that the child needs. If they do the grocery shopping and provide all the out of the house logistical support they will be doing something invaluable. This is the time for Parent A to become a hero and get mad respect for it.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:00 AM on April 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Susan PG
This. What is most fair is what is safest for the child. If the child gets sick and is seriously ill with the virus and there is any probability that Parent A infected them, Parent A will be extremely unhappy, in a way no parent ever wants to be. Basically, unthinkable pain and guilt. Anything either parent can do to protect Parent A from that horror is a good plan, even if the non-negotiable need to protect the child wasn't already paramount.
Child should live with Parent B and Parent A should console themself with the knowledge that they are sacrificing their feelings and needs for the child and continuing to bring in an income that the child needs. If they do the grocery shopping and provide all the out of the house logistical support they will be doing something invaluable. This is the time for Parent A to become a hero and get mad respect for it.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:00 AM on April 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
I only see 2 reasonable options
1. Partner A doesn't take the job and custody continues as normal
2. Partner A does take the job and child lives with Parent B until this is over.
Maybe option 1 isn't possible for some reason but that's the one I'd want if I were Parent A, Parent B and the child. The therapy center closed for a reason. Many kids and adults aren't getting the therapies they need because it's not safely possible to provide them AND do what we need to do as a society to stop the spread of the virus.
posted by victoriab at 8:46 AM on April 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
1. Partner A doesn't take the job and custody continues as normal
2. Partner A does take the job and child lives with Parent B until this is over.
Maybe option 1 isn't possible for some reason but that's the one I'd want if I were Parent A, Parent B and the child. The therapy center closed for a reason. Many kids and adults aren't getting the therapies they need because it's not safely possible to provide them AND do what we need to do as a society to stop the spread of the virus.
posted by victoriab at 8:46 AM on April 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
LOTS of families are making the hard choice to put the kids’ needs first right now. Although the local legal opinion is that co-parenting is to continue, that is Only if both households are following the isolation protocols. Unfortunately, it sounds like one household has chosen not to (unless the therapy is respiratory support it is not life-saving, although I understand the client feels it is very necessary).
I did suggest my co-parent move back in (we have an amicable relationship) for the next six months but he declined. My co-parent has chosen to not see our children since February, and that will likely continue until July (he had to choose between seeing his parents and his children and choose his parents at their insistence).
Fortunately there are tonnes of ways to stay physically apart but still enjoy movies, games, conversations etc together. My kids are enjoying online be D&D for example, group-watching Netflix, and zoom parties. I love the grocery run idea, that is fantastic. Everyone is having their life disrupted, thenchild is old enough to make sense of that (and might actually be having unsaid anxiety about visit a home that is not following protocols). Here, unnecessary car trips are strongly discouraged - because if you get in a crash or the car breaks down you are exposing yourself. So transposition between the households themselves is a safety risk as well.
posted by saucysault at 9:44 AM on April 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I did suggest my co-parent move back in (we have an amicable relationship) for the next six months but he declined. My co-parent has chosen to not see our children since February, and that will likely continue until July (he had to choose between seeing his parents and his children and choose his parents at their insistence).
Fortunately there are tonnes of ways to stay physically apart but still enjoy movies, games, conversations etc together. My kids are enjoying online be D&D for example, group-watching Netflix, and zoom parties. I love the grocery run idea, that is fantastic. Everyone is having their life disrupted, thenchild is old enough to make sense of that (and might actually be having unsaid anxiety about visit a home that is not following protocols). Here, unnecessary car trips are strongly discouraged - because if you get in a crash or the car breaks down you are exposing yourself. So transposition between the households themselves is a safety risk as well.
posted by saucysault at 9:44 AM on April 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
It does not appear to mitigate the risk if you try to wait until your child with high-risk conditions has symptoms. Asymptomatic transmission is a fact, e.g. Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders (NYT / reprint)
We are in the midst of an unprecedented public health emergency, with nine in 10 United States residents now or will soon be under instructions to stay at home (NYT) as a result. And we are continuing to learn more about the transmission of the coronavirus, e.g Coronavirus might spread much farther than 6 feet in the air (USA Today) and How long does the coronavirus live on surfaces (USA Today).
In addition, for people with asthma, the CDC is advising "during a COVID-19 outbreak in your community, stay home as much as possible to further reduce your risk of being exposed." On March 20, 2020, CBS News reported "If you have asthma, you are among those at greatest risk in the coronavirus pandemic and must take precautions, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) says." On March 16, 2020, TIME reported, "The World Health Organization (WHO) [...] lists asthma, along with diabetes and heart disease, as conditions that make someone “more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.”
And there are reports that children are not immune from the worst consequences of this illness (Guardian), and children with underlying chronic health conditions should still be considered high-risk for developing complications (NBC News).
By engaging in social/physical distancing, You Can Help Break the Chain of Transmission (Siobhan Roberts, NYT, updated March 20, 2020) (via the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health news updates), and this seems like a relevant perspective to consider: Hold the line (Jonathan Smith, Infectious disease epidemiologist focusing the dynamics of disease transmission, Medium, Mar. 20, 2020):
“We can’t assume that any of us are not potential vectors at any time,” Dr. Bergstrom said. “This is why even though I’m feeling great, and have felt great and haven’t been exposed to anybody with any symptoms of anything, that’s why it would be irresponsible of me to go out and about today.”Also, a ‘negative’ coronavirus test result doesn’t always mean you aren’t infected (WaPo / MSN), even if one is available, and it is important to protect the parents, too, particularly as data suggests Younger Adults Make Up Big Portion of Coronavirus Hospitalizations in U.S. (NYT).
We are in the midst of an unprecedented public health emergency, with nine in 10 United States residents now or will soon be under instructions to stay at home (NYT) as a result. And we are continuing to learn more about the transmission of the coronavirus, e.g Coronavirus might spread much farther than 6 feet in the air (USA Today) and How long does the coronavirus live on surfaces (USA Today).
In addition, for people with asthma, the CDC is advising "during a COVID-19 outbreak in your community, stay home as much as possible to further reduce your risk of being exposed." On March 20, 2020, CBS News reported "If you have asthma, you are among those at greatest risk in the coronavirus pandemic and must take precautions, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) says." On March 16, 2020, TIME reported, "The World Health Organization (WHO) [...] lists asthma, along with diabetes and heart disease, as conditions that make someone “more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus.”
And there are reports that children are not immune from the worst consequences of this illness (Guardian), and children with underlying chronic health conditions should still be considered high-risk for developing complications (NBC News).
By engaging in social/physical distancing, You Can Help Break the Chain of Transmission (Siobhan Roberts, NYT, updated March 20, 2020) (via the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health news updates), and this seems like a relevant perspective to consider: Hold the line (Jonathan Smith, Infectious disease epidemiologist focusing the dynamics of disease transmission, Medium, Mar. 20, 2020):
You should perceive your entire family to function as a single individual unit; if one person puts themselves at risk, everyone in the unit is at risk. Seemingly small social chains get large and complex with alarming speed. [...] This sounds silly, it’s not. This is not a joke or a hypothetical. We as epidemiologists see it borne out in the data time and time again and no one listens. Conversely, any break in that chain breaks disease transmission along that chain.posted by katra at 3:13 PM on April 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
[...] It is hard (even for me) to conceptualize how ‘one quick little get together’ can undermine the entire framework of a public health intervention, but it does. I promise you it does. I promise. I promise. I promise. You can’t cheat it. People are already itching to cheat on the social distancing precautions just a “little”- a playdate, a haircut, or picking up a needless item at the store, etc. From a transmission dynamics standpoint, this very quickly recreates a highly connected social network that undermines all of the work the community has done so far.
[...] My goal in writing this is to prevent communities from getting ‘sucker-punched’ by what the epidemiological community knows will happen in the coming weeks. It will be easy to be drawn to the idea that what we are doing isn’t working and become paralyzed by fear, or to ‘cheat’ a little bit in the coming weeks. By knowing what to expect, and knowing the importance of maintaining these measures, my hope is to encourage continued community spirit, strategizing, and action to persevere in this time of uncertainty.
Mod note: A couple deleted; please note the OP specifies the child does have increased risk factors.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:51 PM on April 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:51 PM on April 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Whoa, Eyebrows, I missed that! Sorry, and thanks for deleting.
posted by MiraK at 4:54 AM on April 5, 2020
posted by MiraK at 4:54 AM on April 5, 2020
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:34 PM on April 3, 2020 [14 favorites]