Is it covid safe to visit my grandma after minor exposure?
January 26, 2024 12:06 PM Subscribe
I was planning to fly to visit my grandma this weekend. But, I was exposed to someone who was exposed to covid. Is it safe? More details inside.
The exposure:
Yesterday I spent around half-an-hour playing with a 4-year-old and 2-year-old, which involved a good deal of face time and sharing air space.
Afterwards, I learned the kid's nanny had tested positive for covid that morning.
The nanny spent about 6 hours with the kids several times earlier this week.
Asking the parents just now, the kids are "OK but maybe a sore throat" and nasal swab tests have come back negative but "maybe a line so faint you can hardly see it."
I am fully vaxed and boosted.
the nanny is fully vaxed and boosted.
the kids are fully vaxed and boosted.
my grandma is fully vaxed and boosted. She is in her 80s with several health complications, but no immune issues.
The concerns:
I don't understand, and am unable to find information, on asymptomatic exposure.
On the one hand, I spoke with my doctor this morning who said that people who are asymptomatic pose very little risk of transmitting covid, especially if the visit was only an hour.
On the other hand, they are not an epidemiologist and I have huge lack of trust for the CDC/government/official information about this. I remember when cautions and guidelines where changed willy-nilly at the behest of corporate lobbying, and I've not seen an update saying "OK you can actually trust this now."
The next steps:
I'm going to be very safe. Based on what I learn from this thread, I'm going to call my grandma and talk it over and ultimately whoever is the most concerned about safety gets to decide if the trip is canceled. However, I don't want to let my anxiety, which flares up before travel anyway, to latch on to this and cancel the trip and drive down quality of life.
Some of my specific questions:
A. How long does it take from exposure to know if you are sick or not?
B. How long from exposure might a sick person be contagious?
C. How reliable are the vaccines? How confident can we be in the fact that everyone in this chain is boosted?
D. If someone is "possibly infectious", how long should they isolate? AKA when can I see my nephews again, and if I decide I'm risky, how long should I stay at home?
The exposure:
Yesterday I spent around half-an-hour playing with a 4-year-old and 2-year-old, which involved a good deal of face time and sharing air space.
Afterwards, I learned the kid's nanny had tested positive for covid that morning.
The nanny spent about 6 hours with the kids several times earlier this week.
Asking the parents just now, the kids are "OK but maybe a sore throat" and nasal swab tests have come back negative but "maybe a line so faint you can hardly see it."
I am fully vaxed and boosted.
the nanny is fully vaxed and boosted.
the kids are fully vaxed and boosted.
my grandma is fully vaxed and boosted. She is in her 80s with several health complications, but no immune issues.
The concerns:
I don't understand, and am unable to find information, on asymptomatic exposure.
On the one hand, I spoke with my doctor this morning who said that people who are asymptomatic pose very little risk of transmitting covid, especially if the visit was only an hour.
On the other hand, they are not an epidemiologist and I have huge lack of trust for the CDC/government/official information about this. I remember when cautions and guidelines where changed willy-nilly at the behest of corporate lobbying, and I've not seen an update saying "OK you can actually trust this now."
The next steps:
I'm going to be very safe. Based on what I learn from this thread, I'm going to call my grandma and talk it over and ultimately whoever is the most concerned about safety gets to decide if the trip is canceled. However, I don't want to let my anxiety, which flares up before travel anyway, to latch on to this and cancel the trip and drive down quality of life.
Some of my specific questions:
A. How long does it take from exposure to know if you are sick or not?
B. How long from exposure might a sick person be contagious?
C. How reliable are the vaccines? How confident can we be in the fact that everyone in this chain is boosted?
D. If someone is "possibly infectious", how long should they isolate? AKA when can I see my nephews again, and if I decide I'm risky, how long should I stay at home?
Response by poster: Yes, that's already the plan. This is pre-conversation research :)
posted by rebent at 12:19 PM on January 26, 2024
posted by rebent at 12:19 PM on January 26, 2024
Usually contacts-of-contacts are not considered covid exposures. It would be unusual though not impossible to see an extremely faint line early in someone's bout of covid as viral loads are usually highest at the beginning. I agree you should ask your grandmother what her risk tolerance is here!
posted by capricorn at 12:20 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by capricorn at 12:20 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
Best answer: If they had a faint line they are positive. If after extensive covid exposure they have any syptom of covid they should also assume they have covid. So you should consider yourself exposed to a person who had covid. Do with that what you will.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:31 PM on January 26, 2024 [38 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:31 PM on January 26, 2024 [38 favorites]
I'll start with "can barely see a line" is also known as COVID positive. We still believe that people can transmit COVID before they show symptoms. I'd consider you directly exposed.
Also, it's worth knowing if you and your grandma have the latest COVID vaccine that was targeting omicron and its variants. That's going to be significantly more protective than relying on shots from 2021 and even 2022 boosters.
In the end, you and your grandma will choose what risks you are willing to take. Maybe that means not going, maybe that means masks and ventilation, or maybe you'll both feel OK with none of that.
posted by advicepig at 12:41 PM on January 26, 2024 [15 favorites]
Also, it's worth knowing if you and your grandma have the latest COVID vaccine that was targeting omicron and its variants. That's going to be significantly more protective than relying on shots from 2021 and even 2022 boosters.
In the end, you and your grandma will choose what risks you are willing to take. Maybe that means not going, maybe that means masks and ventilation, or maybe you'll both feel OK with none of that.
posted by advicepig at 12:41 PM on January 26, 2024 [15 favorites]
Best answer: If you were within driving distance and stayed outdoors and masked, I'd probably say "eh, maybe give it a shot," (I hung out with a friend who so far is negative but her husband has it yesterday, but outside and I kept my mask on), but you're flying to visit and apparently you're flying today/tomorrow :( That's even more exposure time on a plane and very recent covid exposure since yes, the kids are positive and you have been directly exposed. I would say not to go.
Don't know what state/s are involved here, but this is what I came up with in searching (for CA):
"Avoid contact with people at higher-risk for severe COVID-19 for 10 days*. Higher-risk individuals include the elderly, those who live in congregate care facilities, those who have immunocompromising conditions, and that put them at higher risk for serious illness."
*The potential infectious period is 2 days before the date of symptoms began or the positive test date (if no symptoms) through Day 10. (Day 0 is the symptom onset date or positive test date).
If you do not have symptoms, and are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection and would benefit from treatment, you should test within 5 days."
C. How reliable are the vaccines? How confident can we be in the fact that everyone in this chain is boosted?
People still catch covid even if they have every single shot. I'm not sure if that even matters.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
Don't know what state/s are involved here, but this is what I came up with in searching (for CA):
"Avoid contact with people at higher-risk for severe COVID-19 for 10 days*. Higher-risk individuals include the elderly, those who live in congregate care facilities, those who have immunocompromising conditions, and that put them at higher risk for serious illness."
*The potential infectious period is 2 days before the date of symptoms began or the positive test date (if no symptoms) through Day 10. (Day 0 is the symptom onset date or positive test date).
If you do not have symptoms, and are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection and would benefit from treatment, you should test within 5 days."
C. How reliable are the vaccines? How confident can we be in the fact that everyone in this chain is boosted?
People still catch covid even if they have every single shot. I'm not sure if that even matters.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
C. How reliable are the vaccines?
The vaccines are incredibly reliable for what they were designed to do, which is to prevent serious illness, hospitalization, and death. The Covid vaccines do not, and have not ever, prevented one from contracting Covid.
If there is a line, ANY LINE, on the test, that person has Covid. Period.
posted by cooker girl at 1:08 PM on January 26, 2024 [10 favorites]
The vaccines are incredibly reliable for what they were designed to do, which is to prevent serious illness, hospitalization, and death. The Covid vaccines do not, and have not ever, prevented one from contracting Covid.
If there is a line, ANY LINE, on the test, that person has Covid. Period.
posted by cooker girl at 1:08 PM on January 26, 2024 [10 favorites]
nasal swab tests have come back negative but "maybe a line so faint you can hardly see it."
Just an anecdote, but my first positive test was so faint that I might have missed it if I hadn't been having such obvious symptoms that I triple checked, put it under a lamp, and then took a picture and boosted the contrast in Photoshop to confirm what my eyes saw. The next test I took in the subsequent days was strongly positive.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:11 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
Just an anecdote, but my first positive test was so faint that I might have missed it if I hadn't been having such obvious symptoms that I triple checked, put it under a lamp, and then took a picture and boosted the contrast in Photoshop to confirm what my eyes saw. The next test I took in the subsequent days was strongly positive.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:11 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
The Covid vaccines do not, and have not ever, prevented one from contracting Covid.
This is a derail because it doesn't change the calculus at all, but this isn't quite true: The vaccines don't prevent all infections but they do prevent some of them. The first trials back in 2020 showed a 90+% reduction in test positives. It's a lot worse now, but if you have the most recent vaccine it's still something like a 30% reduction. Like I said, not enough to change the calculus.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:22 PM on January 26, 2024 [3 favorites]
This is a derail because it doesn't change the calculus at all, but this isn't quite true: The vaccines don't prevent all infections but they do prevent some of them. The first trials back in 2020 showed a 90+% reduction in test positives. It's a lot worse now, but if you have the most recent vaccine it's still something like a 30% reduction. Like I said, not enough to change the calculus.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:22 PM on January 26, 2024 [3 favorites]
Best answer: What I get from this is:
1. The kids have covid. (If you can barely see the line, that still means they have covid.)
2. The kids are assumed to have caught covid from their nanny sometime earlier in the week. This would mean that they had covid when you were playing with them. This would mean you were exposed to covid.
3. How you got exposed doesn't really matter. You've been exposed.
I think if you strip all of the details away and just consider that you have been exposed to covid, that will help you determine next steps, whatever they may be.
If it were me, when talking to grandma, the question would be, "considering that I've been exposed to covid, do you want me to stay home or come visit with precautions?"
If you travel, I hope you'll mask on the plane (both trips), in the airports, and in public transportation. And best of luck, I hope you don't get sick!
posted by happy_cat at 1:38 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
1. The kids have covid. (If you can barely see the line, that still means they have covid.)
2. The kids are assumed to have caught covid from their nanny sometime earlier in the week. This would mean that they had covid when you were playing with them. This would mean you were exposed to covid.
3. How you got exposed doesn't really matter. You've been exposed.
I think if you strip all of the details away and just consider that you have been exposed to covid, that will help you determine next steps, whatever they may be.
If it were me, when talking to grandma, the question would be, "considering that I've been exposed to covid, do you want me to stay home or come visit with precautions?"
If you travel, I hope you'll mask on the plane (both trips), in the airports, and in public transportation. And best of luck, I hope you don't get sick!
posted by happy_cat at 1:38 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
Oh, fair enough, I wasn't super clear. For something like polio, the effectiveness is 99%-100% for fully vaccinated people, so a breakthrough rate of 0%-1%. That's what most people think is a "reliable" vaccine; apologies for putting words in anyone's mouth if that's the case. But for Covid vaccines, breakthrough infections are at like 42% right now for fully vaccinated people.
Bottom line: one or both of the kids the OP was with for several hours is testing positive for Covid, even though they're fully vaccinated. Being fully vaccinated for Covid does not mean a 99%-100% chance of immunity.
posted by cooker girl at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
Bottom line: one or both of the kids the OP was with for several hours is testing positive for Covid, even though they're fully vaccinated. Being fully vaccinated for Covid does not mean a 99%-100% chance of immunity.
posted by cooker girl at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
Sore throat = symptom
Faint line = positive test
Now, they may have caught this so early that they weren't highly contagious, but these are not asymptomatic kids. These are kids who tested positive for Covid and have symptoms. My early Covid tests had much fainter lines than the days ahead.
Here's the deal: if you visit your grandma, and she gets sick, you are going to feel really awful about your choices. If you go, mask up on the plane and around her. But I'd say to skip it. I'm sorry.
posted by bluedaisy at 2:13 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
Faint line = positive test
Now, they may have caught this so early that they weren't highly contagious, but these are not asymptomatic kids. These are kids who tested positive for Covid and have symptoms. My early Covid tests had much fainter lines than the days ahead.
Here's the deal: if you visit your grandma, and she gets sick, you are going to feel really awful about your choices. If you go, mask up on the plane and around her. But I'd say to skip it. I'm sorry.
posted by bluedaisy at 2:13 PM on January 26, 2024 [5 favorites]
Yeah, on second thought I think my previous comment put too much stock in the "maybe a faint line and maybe a sore throat" part, just because I know that when you're really anxious/obsessive about self-checking/checking others for covid symptoms it can sometimes present like this. But having thought about it I now agree that you should consider this a direct exposure, OP, and isolate for 4 days before testing.
posted by capricorn at 2:26 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by capricorn at 2:26 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Agreeing with everyone who says kids with a faint line and sore throat have covid. You’ve been exposed. The details don’t really matter, just that fact and your grandma’s risk tolerance.
As a completely meaningless anecdote, i caught covid from my unsymptomatic 2 year old niece with even less exposure, fully vaccinated. So theres that, for whatever it doesn't mean.
posted by cgg at 2:45 PM on January 26, 2024 [3 favorites]
As a completely meaningless anecdote, i caught covid from my unsymptomatic 2 year old niece with even less exposure, fully vaccinated. So theres that, for whatever it doesn't mean.
posted by cgg at 2:45 PM on January 26, 2024 [3 favorites]
if you visit your grandma, and she gets sick, you are going to feel really awful about your choices.
On the other hand, if they don't go, and grandma drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow, they're going to feel awful, too. I think OP is 100% correct to let grandma make the decision. The real risk is to her and she's the only one who can judge the value of the benefits to her, too.
But for Covid vaccines, breakthrough infections are at like 42% right now for fully vaccinated people.
Maybe there is later data backing this up, in which case I retract this remark, but this statement as it stands seems very irresponsible to me.
(a) "A significant 41.9% of the infections during our 6-month study were bivalent vaccine breakthrough infections (1,187 infections were in bivalent-vaccinated individuals out of 2,835 infections during these six months, or 1,187/2,835)."
What this means is not that ~42% of vaccinated people exposed to COVID developed a breakthrough infection. What it means is that of all the people who developed COVID, ~42% of them were already vaccinated. So if there are 1000 people in the overall population, and 100 develop COVID over the course of the study, 58 of them will be unvaccinated and 42 of them will be bivalent-vaccinated. That does not mean that of 1000 vaccinated people exposed to COVID, 420 of them will develop a breakthrough infection.
(b) "Prior studies showed high efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infection and transmission rates [4], which is why our results are perplexing. The vaccinated and unvaccinated had similar absolute infection rates; the vaccinated had slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rates. Our results may be influenced by the current immunologic state of the studied population, not solely by the efficacy of the COVID-19 bivalent (or monovalent) vaccines." I.e., extrapolating from a prison population (studied here) is pretty much always going to be problematic in various ways.
I have only a very very modest understanding of statistics myself (hell, it's possible I got my explanation above subtly wrong) and I know it's hard, but spreading cherry-picked quotes from articles you either don't read in full or can't follow is actively harmful and it would benefit online discourse a lot if pro-mitigation people stopped doing it.
posted by praemunire at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
On the other hand, if they don't go, and grandma drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow, they're going to feel awful, too. I think OP is 100% correct to let grandma make the decision. The real risk is to her and she's the only one who can judge the value of the benefits to her, too.
But for Covid vaccines, breakthrough infections are at like 42% right now for fully vaccinated people.
Maybe there is later data backing this up, in which case I retract this remark, but this statement as it stands seems very irresponsible to me.
(a) "A significant 41.9% of the infections during our 6-month study were bivalent vaccine breakthrough infections (1,187 infections were in bivalent-vaccinated individuals out of 2,835 infections during these six months, or 1,187/2,835)."
What this means is not that ~42% of vaccinated people exposed to COVID developed a breakthrough infection. What it means is that of all the people who developed COVID, ~42% of them were already vaccinated. So if there are 1000 people in the overall population, and 100 develop COVID over the course of the study, 58 of them will be unvaccinated and 42 of them will be bivalent-vaccinated. That does not mean that of 1000 vaccinated people exposed to COVID, 420 of them will develop a breakthrough infection.
(b) "Prior studies showed high efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infection and transmission rates [4], which is why our results are perplexing. The vaccinated and unvaccinated had similar absolute infection rates; the vaccinated had slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rates. Our results may be influenced by the current immunologic state of the studied population, not solely by the efficacy of the COVID-19 bivalent (or monovalent) vaccines." I.e., extrapolating from a prison population (studied here) is pretty much always going to be problematic in various ways.
I have only a very very modest understanding of statistics myself (hell, it's possible I got my explanation above subtly wrong) and I know it's hard, but spreading cherry-picked quotes from articles you either don't read in full or can't follow is actively harmful and it would benefit online discourse a lot if pro-mitigation people stopped doing it.
posted by praemunire at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Thanks everyone for the comments and advice. I decided to cancel the trip.
posted by rebent at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
posted by rebent at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
Thank you for cancelling the trip and I hope you get to see your grandma soon.
Signed the unsuspecting immunocompromised person sitting next to you on the plane.
posted by FencingGal at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
Signed the unsuspecting immunocompromised person sitting next to you on the plane.
posted by FencingGal at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
Thanks everyone for the comments and advice. I decided to cancel the trip.
I hate that you had to do this but you made the right choice. The current strains are extremely contagious and immune evasive. While they may not be as deadly as they once were it still SUCKS to catch it, and it’s a risk to an older person.
posted by azpenguin at 3:23 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
I hate that you had to do this but you made the right choice. The current strains are extremely contagious and immune evasive. While they may not be as deadly as they once were it still SUCKS to catch it, and it’s a risk to an older person.
posted by azpenguin at 3:23 PM on January 26, 2024 [4 favorites]
Thank you for not getting on a plane after a direct covid exposure. I’m sorry about your trip and I hope you can see her some other time soon or at least do some catching up over phone or video.
posted by Stacey at 3:27 PM on January 26, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by Stacey at 3:27 PM on January 26, 2024 [7 favorites]
I hate that you had to cancel your trip. I hope you get to spend time with her soon.
I also came here to say I just essentially asked the reverse of your question - how to stay safe from Covid while flying because I’m immunocompromised. Thanks for keeping folks like me safe as well. <3
posted by floweredfish at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
I also came here to say I just essentially asked the reverse of your question - how to stay safe from Covid while flying because I’m immunocompromised. Thanks for keeping folks like me safe as well. <3
posted by floweredfish at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2024 [11 favorites]
I'm sorry you had to cancel your trip but I think you did the right thing. Anecdotally: I caught COVID from my partner. He was completely asymptomatic the whole time and probably caught it from someone else who was asymptomatic and testing negative on rapid tests. I also have at least one coworker who caught it from an asymptomatic spouse; I don't know that they ever figured out where the spouse got it. Asymptomatic people may be less contagious in that they're not coughing the virus out all over the place, but they're still exhaling it and the newer variants are way more contagious.
Rapid tests, especially with the new variants, can give false negatives. Apparently swabbing your throat before your nostrils can help give more accurate results. But a faint line, no matter how faint, is a positive result. When I do rapid tests I actually shine my phone's flashlight on the result window at a bunch of different angles to make absolutely sure there's no line.
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 4:40 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
Rapid tests, especially with the new variants, can give false negatives. Apparently swabbing your throat before your nostrils can help give more accurate results. But a faint line, no matter how faint, is a positive result. When I do rapid tests I actually shine my phone's flashlight on the result window at a bunch of different angles to make absolutely sure there's no line.
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 4:40 PM on January 26, 2024 [1 favorite]
Rapid tests, especially with the new variants, can give false negatives.
If you're asymptomatic, a rapid test is no better than a coin toss.
posted by praemunire at 4:47 PM on January 26, 2024
If you're asymptomatic, a rapid test is no better than a coin toss.
posted by praemunire at 4:47 PM on January 26, 2024
Mod note: Several comments removed because they were derailing into what commenters think MetaFilter as a community reacts to various aspects of COVID. Feel free to take that conversatioin to MetaTalk, but stop doing it here,.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:14 AM on January 27, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:14 AM on January 27, 2024 [4 favorites]
I’m glad the conversation helped you make a decision you feel comfortable with. Just to throw some support your way — we made a similar decision last Christmas. Didn’t feel good at the time, but two days later, when one of us developed symptoms, we were glad we had. I hope you’re able to reschedule the trip (and that you stay healthy yourself!)
FWIW, even this relatively incautious CDC is still recommending that those who were exposed to COVID mask consistently around others for ten days and avoid all situations in which you can’t. I know that’s likely out of step with what most people are doing now, and it comes across as surprising given the tenor of public health recommendations to people who have known infections; but that’s what I would do myself, in your shoes. (Note: the page is older but is not marked as deprecated or superseded by new guidance, so I’m assuming the advice remains in place.)
posted by eirias at 12:46 PM on January 27, 2024
FWIW, even this relatively incautious CDC is still recommending that those who were exposed to COVID mask consistently around others for ten days and avoid all situations in which you can’t. I know that’s likely out of step with what most people are doing now, and it comes across as surprising given the tenor of public health recommendations to people who have known infections; but that’s what I would do myself, in your shoes. (Note: the page is older but is not marked as deprecated or superseded by new guidance, so I’m assuming the advice remains in place.)
posted by eirias at 12:46 PM on January 27, 2024
D. If someone is "possibly infectious", how long should they isolate? AKA when can I see my nephews again, and if I decide I'm risky, how long should I stay at home?
Assuming both the kids are symptomatic and testing positive, I've seen nothing that indicates you need to worry about reinfecting them with the variant they've currently got. By the time their heightened immunity from this infection wanes, a new variant will probably be on the rise.
From my perspective (pretty low risk tolerance, probably going to die mad at the CDC, poking at COVID discussions from time to time but not deep into them), the CDC recommendations for the timeline for precautions post-exposure may possibly be conservative at this point, as long as you're wearing a KN94/N95 or better. I'm less comfortable with the CDC's acceptance of a high-quality mask that's not a respirator in this period. It's certainly better than nothing, though, and I know respirators aren't necessarily easily accessible, especially well-fitting ones that are comfortable for extended wear.
If you wanted to go with an even higher degree of caution and actually isolate, it seems that the newer variants are very likely to manifest symptoms pretty quickly, more like 2-4 days after exposure, so 5 days of actual isolation (plus masking through day 10 after) would be above and beyond CDC recommendations without vastly exceeding what's been observed about the typical effects of current variants.
As far as your doctor's recommendation that asymptomatic exposure is unlikely, there was some discussion a few years ago about the lumping of "asymptomatic" (never having symptoms) and "pre-symptomatic" (eventually having symptoms) together being a problem for the research on infection rates from truly asymptomatic cases and the popular understanding and application of that research. But it's moot anyway in this case, since the kids are symptomatic and testing positive. For myself, I stopped following the asymptomatic infectiousness discussion once we hit the point where the variants were pretty regularly evading the tests until symptoms showed up. I'd already decided I wasn't going to be inside in public without an N95 or better, so it just didn't seem relevant.
In terms of re-entering your nephews' household if you don't get COVID from your current exposure - it could be awhile, depending on your level of risk tolerance. Even if the kids' parents have all the best available layers of mitigation in place, their risk of infection will still be increased since they have to have regular close contact with the kids -- kids that young can't be masked 100% of the time around their caregivers, if they're even able to mask well at all. If it was me practicing my maximum level of caution, I wouldn't go over unmasked until 10 days after both kids have 2 negative rapid tests 48 hours apart, assuming neither parent shows symptoms or tests positive in that time. Any time someone in the household shows symptoms or tests positive, the timer would reset. But depending on what my family needed and what my near-future plans were, I might be willing to practice something less than my highest level of caution, since I live alone and I'm already observing more precautions in public than most.
I'm sorry you had to cancel your trip to see your grandmother, but I think you made the right call and I hope you can reschedule soon.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:33 PM on January 27, 2024
Assuming both the kids are symptomatic and testing positive, I've seen nothing that indicates you need to worry about reinfecting them with the variant they've currently got. By the time their heightened immunity from this infection wanes, a new variant will probably be on the rise.
From my perspective (pretty low risk tolerance, probably going to die mad at the CDC, poking at COVID discussions from time to time but not deep into them), the CDC recommendations for the timeline for precautions post-exposure may possibly be conservative at this point, as long as you're wearing a KN94/N95 or better. I'm less comfortable with the CDC's acceptance of a high-quality mask that's not a respirator in this period. It's certainly better than nothing, though, and I know respirators aren't necessarily easily accessible, especially well-fitting ones that are comfortable for extended wear.
If you wanted to go with an even higher degree of caution and actually isolate, it seems that the newer variants are very likely to manifest symptoms pretty quickly, more like 2-4 days after exposure, so 5 days of actual isolation (plus masking through day 10 after) would be above and beyond CDC recommendations without vastly exceeding what's been observed about the typical effects of current variants.
As far as your doctor's recommendation that asymptomatic exposure is unlikely, there was some discussion a few years ago about the lumping of "asymptomatic" (never having symptoms) and "pre-symptomatic" (eventually having symptoms) together being a problem for the research on infection rates from truly asymptomatic cases and the popular understanding and application of that research. But it's moot anyway in this case, since the kids are symptomatic and testing positive. For myself, I stopped following the asymptomatic infectiousness discussion once we hit the point where the variants were pretty regularly evading the tests until symptoms showed up. I'd already decided I wasn't going to be inside in public without an N95 or better, so it just didn't seem relevant.
In terms of re-entering your nephews' household if you don't get COVID from your current exposure - it could be awhile, depending on your level of risk tolerance. Even if the kids' parents have all the best available layers of mitigation in place, their risk of infection will still be increased since they have to have regular close contact with the kids -- kids that young can't be masked 100% of the time around their caregivers, if they're even able to mask well at all. If it was me practicing my maximum level of caution, I wouldn't go over unmasked until 10 days after both kids have 2 negative rapid tests 48 hours apart, assuming neither parent shows symptoms or tests positive in that time. Any time someone in the household shows symptoms or tests positive, the timer would reset. But depending on what my family needed and what my near-future plans were, I might be willing to practice something less than my highest level of caution, since I live alone and I'm already observing more precautions in public than most.
I'm sorry you had to cancel your trip to see your grandmother, but I think you made the right call and I hope you can reschedule soon.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:33 PM on January 27, 2024
« Older MS-SQL problem: exporting with long character... | Energy efficiency grants for schools Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
There is no such thing as COVID-safe. And at her age, she may value seeing her child in the time she has before she dies.
posted by saeculorum at 12:14 PM on January 26, 2024 [9 favorites]