Could you easily quarantine for 14 days?

[Ottakee]

I saw on the thread about the holidays various people mentioning quarantining for 14 days or asking family members to do so (by choice, not due to positive tests or known exposure).

Is it easy for many families to do this?

I work in education so unless we are remote learning, I can't easily do so.  One of my kids is in food service, one at an essential factory, and 2 at a grocery store. 

Quarantining all of us for 14 days in anticipation of an event/family visit is just not practical, esp as we all need our income to pay the bills.  Working from home is not an option for any of my kids and only an option for me if the schools shut down in our area.

Disclaimer....obviously a known exposure or positive test would have us quarantining.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Ottakee

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yes

[Teresa in MO]

My youngest son and I could quarantine for 14 days.  But my other son and daughter that lives at home could not.  If they had definite exposure they would have to and their employers would insist that they not come back to work for 14 days.  But to do it as a precaution before getting together with someone, they couldn't.  My ds works at a grocery store.  His college classes are all online, so that is no problem.  My dd works at a hardware store and goes to school at night.  She is in an esthetician program.  Only six students and an instructor.  Wear masks and can definitely social distance.

[Arcadia]

It’s easy for my family as long as I do not have any medical appointments. My husband is working from home until at least June 2021. My kids are in 10th and 11th grade and all their classes are online. They aren’t working. I am not working and my classes which I take for enrichment are all online.  

Our only difficulty would be things like milk, meat, yoghurt because my fridge is small and we don’t do home delivery. If we need to quarantine for exposure/positive test, then we would ask friends to help buy and drop off at our condo gated entrance.

[mommyoffive]

Yes . We. Have been since March.   And will be for awhile. 

[Spryte]

Yes.  

[Tenaj]

We would obviously quarantine for medical reasons, but no, we would not quarantine for a holiday gathering.  We have a significant amount of exposure through work schedules, school schedules and sports schedules.  

[Roadrunner]

 No. 

[mathnerd]

We have been staying home intentionally for periods longer than 14 days since march. 

[J-rap]

I could for necessary medical reasons, of course.  A few things might be a little tricky to figure out, but we have lots of family in the area who could help.

[katilac]

No, not as a precaution. dh works out in the world. 

[Pam in CT]

All the *essential* work or study in our lives is virtual these days, so we *could* quarantine- in various clusters, or we have an in-law apartment that one or two of us could do it separate from the rest.  

But at this point, if the idea is to prepare to visit with someone without risking exposure, we'll get tested instead. Results here are taking <2 days; in NYC to which my eldest has returned it's same-day. 14 days is a long time; I'd rather just do the test.

[TABmom]

No, we could not quarantine for a family event. If one of us was diagnosed or even known to be exposed, then of course we would. Dh is an essential worker that cannot work from home. Though he would be given the time off if he was exposed. My kids are doing things we've deemed low risk too. Horseback riding lessons and socially distant TKD class. (Forms and weapons instead of sparring) We even meet friends outside at parks and such. Obviously, if we had concerns about being exposed, we would drop those activities for a couple weeks, but without a positive test for dh or someone in our immediate family, he's still going to work.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I said that I could but I wouldn’t for a social. get together. I believe that get togethers should be avoided.  

[Alice]

No, not as a precaution. I’m a pediatrician so I can’t work at home. 

[Sneezyone]

Yes, it is easy for us to quarantine. We don’t have to leave the house. I work from home in the mornings and my kids are doing school at home (x1) and homeschooling (x1). All of our food is delivered too. It’s probably easier for us to quarantine that it is to go out someplace and get a test. Besides that, the people we will be meeting with this Christmas have a lot more exposure than we do. We’re safer for them than they are for us. I’m just hoping to avoid close contact with people while we’re driving from here to there. Can’t wait to snuggle my new niece tho!

Edited September 7, 2020 by Sneezyone

[JustEm]

yes. dh is working from home, dd can take dance class via zoom, and I can stock up on food for two weeks. It would be very easy

[Bambam]

Yes, we did when one of us was sick. We could again if needed. I wouldn't like it, but I could do it. 

[Farrar]

If we all did, yes. If it was for social purposes, I'd just get a bit more food, but we could also order delivery. If it was for an emergency, I could get a friend to pick up some stuff and the cupboard is well stocked and we get produce and dairy delivery once a week.

If just one of us did, no because our house only has one full bath.

I don't see it as necessary at all though. We can all just go get tested and quarantine for the two days to get the results instead.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Farrar

[Farrar]

Just now, square_25 said:

We did so before seeing our in-laws. It felt safer than getting a test due to the rate of false negatives and also because getting a test is by itself a potential exposure!

If any of us were working outside the home or doing anything indoors or in big crowds regularly, then I'd be more wary of the false negatives. As it is, I feel like our risk is so low that the test is just a guarantee and sign of good faith on our part. I mean, low risk coupled with a pretty accurate, if not perfectly accurate test, seems like a pretty good combo. Especially with four tests for the whole family.

[forty-two]

Yes and no.  It is doable for us to quarantine if we needed to (exposure, etc), in that we keep enough food in the house and dh wouldn't lose his job over it.  But it isn't something we could just do easily. DH is the sole pastor at our church, and I'm effectively the sole tech person - our being quarantined for 14 days would be a big disruption.  Doable if truly needed, but not for something optional.

Eta: in general we are pretty careful, in part because church can't run well without us - if any of us get sick, dh can't pastor effectively.  So we cant be taking unnecessary chances. Also, we cant be getting vulnerable church members sick.

Edited September 7, 2020 by forty-two

[Farrar]

Just now, square_25 said:

I kept feeling like I’d need an infinite sequence of tests! Like, I went to the doctor and got tested, but that was a potential exposure to COVID, so I now need another test to prove that I didn’t get it at the doctor...

I’m more paranoid about this than average, though, at least when it comes to our in-laws. 

My mil is in cancer recovery and I've had some similar worries about us going to see them all at Christmas. But I'm trying to just put it out of my head. I know we're being very careful. Protesting and grocery shopping are the riskiest things I do and I'm taking the most risks in the house.

(Also, putting protesting and grocery shopping in the same category for anything in my life is hilarious.)

[Moonhawk]

Yes and we have been*

* is fresh groceries, recently I've been going out for fresh groceries once a week since our fridge is small. But I have enough dry that if I *needed* to stay in the house 14 days we could.

(Re: the other thread, I will be asking my parents to quasi-quarantine. That means ok go for groceries and probably church. I think if my parents were onboard with reasonable precautions, I wouldn't ask them to do anything. )

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am trying to figure out how to put my thoughts on testing for social reasons. It seems wrong somehow to use those tests, which still seem to be a somewhat limited resource at least in some places, for a nonessential reason. Plus- who pays for these tests?  No judgment on others. Just exploring my own feelings on the matter. 

[Bootsie]

DH is retired--so he could.  I am teaching online right now, so it would be possible for me at the moment.  DS has one in-person class and a job outside the home, but he would not be able to in preparation for a planned, option event; he would be able to if he had a documented exposure.  

[Terabith]

Could we?  Yes.  We're all working/ schooling from the house, so it's certainly doable.  

Easily?  Not super easily, because of our tiny freezer, but we could get food delivery or have my in laws drop off groceries on our porch.  The biggest problem would be if we have to keep our cat inside.  He's.....a jerk when he has to stay inside.  

It would be very challenging for one of us to quarantine from the others in our house layout.  

[Pam in CT]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

We did so before seeing our in-laws. It felt safer than getting a test due to the rate of false negatives and also because getting a test is by itself a potential exposure!

My BIL and SIL got tested last week at one of the UWS sites- I think 98th & Columbus. They reported they got appointments 10 minutes apart, only 1 person at a time in the waiting room (they waited outside for a text telling them to come in), only contact with just 1 clinician in full PPE, got results within 2 hours.  And free.  My SIL had been very nervous about the nasal test but reported it was "weird" but not painful.  

And I agree with Farrar about the possibility of false negative -- it's an issue if you're regularly in high exposure situations and only get tested once. But if you're generally pretty buttoned down (my BIL and SIL are) it's an added piece of mind; OR if you're being tested regularly and repeatedly (as my university student is) the repeated testing reduces the likelihood of repeated false negatives.

We've been quite buttoned as well (I'm not even going into grocery stores) -- I wouldn't call it full quarantine, but pretty limited contact -- but I do plan to lean more on testing particularly before seeing my mother, FIL or other elderly relatives.  It's a tool. We don't have many; may as well avail of the ones we have.

[ktgrok]

Not anymore - DS works outside the home and he can't work from home. (veterinary assistant)

He does mask at work. 

Otherwise, we all stay home for that long at a time already. One of us does a Sam's run every few weeks, and we pick up meds at the drive through pharmacy once a month. 

[Pam in CT]

re testing to "stop the spread"

19 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am trying to figure out how to put my thoughts on testing for social reasons. It seems wrong somehow to use those tests, which still seem to be a somewhat limited resource at least in some places, for a nonessential reason. Plus- who pays for these tests?  No judgment on others. Just exploring my own feelings on the matter. 

 

MA (where my mother lives) actually calls it "stop the spread" testing.  Test before you visit that grandmother or newborn baby so that you're sure you aren't asymptomatic but shedding.

I think the reason it seems strange is that we're not really accustomed to think of healthcare in public health terms. Like so many other domain, we tend to think of healthcare in terms of *individuals.*

In NYC there is no cost to individuals. They WANT people who may not have healthcare insurance -- even people who may be uninsured undocumented immigrants -- to not-spread the virus. The idea is that there's a benefit to the society as a whole in the virus not-being-spread. It *is* a different way of thinking, than we usually think.  

I believe in both CT and MA the cost is something like $60, which is covered by Medicare and ACA-compliant insurance, or payable by employers if they're requiring it, or by individuals if they're uninsured.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Pam in CT
autocorrect, sigh

[prairiewindmomma]

Yes.

We are essentially functioning that way now. Dh’s employer has had everyone working from home since March. The schools and university are also all remote. We seem more closed down than I hear elsewhere—even our parks are still closed.

Testing in my area, currently, can only be accessed by those showing 2+ symptoms, or with a known exposure, or by being in high risk category. 

[Farrar]

17 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am trying to figure out how to put my thoughts on testing for social reasons. It seems wrong somehow to use those tests, which still seem to be a somewhat limited resource at least in some places, for a nonessential reason. Plus- who pays for these tests?  No judgment on others. Just exploring my own feelings on the matter. 

They are not in short supply here. My impression reading about it is that political failures are the primary cause of the shortages in other places. So it's not like I'm depriving anyone else of a test. If I don't get tested, it doesn't make there be one more test available for someone in the middle of a state where tests are in short supply. It makes zero difference to them either way. In that sense, I'd say it's more like water. If there's a drought in Ohio, not going swimming in Florida doesn't make any difference.

As for who pays, the government here, funded by my tax dollars pays. I believe strongly in government funded healthcare and the benefits that can lead to. If someone doesn't believe in it, then perhaps they want to forego the test. Or find a way to pay for it out of pocket. But if someone is engaged in risky behavior (and seeing relatives indoors is risky) and doesn't take the test and comes back here and goes grocery shopping next to me, they're putting me and everyone else at a greater risk... which is why my not-a-state is paying for the tests - it lowers the risk to everyone and potentially the cost as well.

Testing is one of only a few prophylactic methods we've got right now.  I feel zero guilt using it. For anyone who is convinced that personal responsibility is the answer, then I guess quarantine your 14 days or find a way to pay for your own test. I'm using what's available.

ETA: Adding that I think the government should pay for a plethora of disease prevention across the board - vaccinations, free condoms, free needle exchange, free screenings. If the government isn't going to pay for healthcare, at least pay for the cheapest, most cost effective parts - the parts that actually save the government money down the line.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Farrar

[City Mouse]

Only if required to due to potential exposure. There would be a lot of income lost and possible job losses if we chose to isolate for an optional visit. 

[Selkie]

We could if we absolutely had to, but I wouldn't do it for a social gathering. I work from home and my kids are taking online classes, so that would be doable. But dh has to leave the house daily to supervise our employees and meet with clients. If he wasn't able to do that, it would significantly impact our businesses. Food would be no problem, as we don't have a need to go to grocery stores. We don't eat meat or dairy, and we get our produce and other staples shipped to us. Vet care might be an issue - we have many horses, dogs, and cats, and it is rare to go for a two week stretch without needing vet care for something or other.

[Jean in Newcastle]

36 minutes ago, Farrar said:

They are not in short supply here. My impression reading about it is that political failures are the primary cause of the shortages in other places. So it's not like I'm depriving anyone else of a test. If I don't get tested, it doesn't make there be one more test available for someone in the middle of a state where tests are in short supply. It makes zero difference to them either way. In that sense, I'd say it's more like water. If there's a drought in Ohio, not going swimming in Florida doesn't make any difference.

As for who pays, the government here, funded by my tax dollars pays. I believe strongly in government funded healthcare and the benefits that can lead to. If someone doesn't believe in it, then perhaps they want to forego the test. Or find a way to pay for it out of pocket. But if someone is engaged in risky behavior (and seeing relatives indoors is risky) and doesn't take the test and comes back here and goes grocery shopping next to me, they're putting me and everyone else at a greater risk... which is why my not-a-state is paying for the tests - it lowers the risk to everyone and potentially the cost as well.

Testing is one of only a few prophylactic methods we've got right now.  I feel zero guilt using it. For anyone who is convinced that personal responsibility is the answer, then I guess quarantine your 14 days or find a way to pay for your own test. I'm using what's available.

ETA: Adding that I think the government should pay for a plethora of disease prevention across the board - vaccinations, free condoms, free needle exchange, free screenings. If the government isn't going to pay for healthcare, at least pay for the cheapest, most cost effective parts - the parts that actually save the government money down the line.

No need to be so defensive. I have met people outdoors, masked and distanced. I don’t see a need to see people otherwise. As I said, I was simply exploring my own feelings on the matter. 

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

No need to be so defensive. I have met people outdoors, masked and distanced. I don’t see a need to see people otherwise. As I said, I was simply exploring my own feelings on the matter. 

Maybe my tone didn't convey. I don't feel defensive. You said you wanted to explore it... I'm saying, I've thought about this myself and come to these conclusions. I mean, I was never going to feel bad about utilizing a government service that I believe in, so the money doesn't concern me at all. But in terms of the scarcity of testing, I'm just saying I also wondered about this and came to the conclusions that I expressed.

[MercyA]

Thankfully yes.

[rebcoola]

No since DH is an essential worker.  Otherwise it would be no problem. 

[Junie]

We have been staying at home for most of this time.  However, spreading groceries out for 14+ days has been difficult.  We could do it if we had some time to prepare, but for one of us to test positive, the next 14 days would be tricky.  We would probably have to have a friend or neighbor get us milk and bread, but mostly we would be fine.

We haven't decided exactly what is going to happen when our two college kids come home.  We may have to plan ahead so that we can quarantine for two weeks.

[edelweiss]

Yes. Easily. 

[Lawyer&Mom]

If we quarantined for 14 days would I notice?  The only thing that gets us out of the house is outdoor walks and doctor’s appointments.  I wouldn’t do it for a social event, but I could very easily do it. 

[SKL]

Me personally, it would be easy, as long as I'm still allowed to go for my solitary walks.  My job can be 100% done at home (and usually is).  We get most groceries etc. delivered already.

My kids, not really.  They have activities and don't do well just sitting around.  I mean, they did have to do it for 2 months, but that was because we had no choice - everything was closed.  With everything open, I wouldn't make them sit around alone in the house while their peers are out doing sports and stuff.

[frogger]

My sons missed multiple chunks of work because we chose to quarantine, once until we knew results of potential exposure until we knew results and once when I had a cold that went to my lungs. I'm asthmatic. Test came back negative but they have a high failure rate so we quarantined anyway and lost money.

For a few weeks I could have said easily. Cancel extra classes and buy some staples but I have food to get us through 2 weeks easily even without warning like if we get sick. 

Then my daughter got a nanny job. So now quarantining will leave the other family high and dry so we would only do it for good reason. 

Honestly, with my family, it would be better to quarantine after the holidays so as not to spread it to other activities/ daughter's nanny job with my large uncaring, as far as Covid is concerned, family. 

 

[Pawz4me]

It would be very challenging for us to voluntarily quarantine. DH has two essential medical appointments this week and one next week. That's not unusual for him, and it's a rare stretch that he has 14 days w/o a medical appointment.

DS21 is an essential worker, although we could, with a little finagling of access to common areas, quarantine ourselves from direct exposure to him.

I could do it relatively easily.

[Carrie12345]

We could arrange it, but I wouldn’t call it exactly easy as a voluntary measure. As a necessary one, yes.

The whole by-choice thing would probably mean dh would get push back from work if major things were going on, and dd would have to get other EMTs to cover her shifts. I’d probably feel guilty and give her money.  Other dd is currently working, but only for another few weeks. Our fire department would be short 3 of their most reliable responders.

I’d worry about making all those voluntary arrangements and then facing an exposure quarantine down the road, taxing the good will of others after doing so for fun.  (Which we recently did, but only for a few days until negative tests came back.).

[EmilyGF]

7 hours ago, square_25 said:

I kept feeling like I’d need an infinite sequence of tests! Like, I went to the doctor and got tested, but that was a potential exposure to COVID, so I now need another test to prove that I didn’t get it at the doctor...

I’m more paranoid about this than average, though, at least when it comes to our in-laws. 

Listening to Christian Drosten (the German coronavirus expert), my impression was that he was suggesting a shorter quarantine before visiting with elderly relatives. He said that if a whole family quarantined for 7 days, and no one had signs of sickness, you were probably fine. Of course, this is in the German context. But that made sense to me.

Also, unless you are getting a PCR test (PCR - expensive, takes more time), the test answers the question, "Can I spread COVID today?" not, "Do I have any COVID in my system?" So then getting a quick test could give someone a false sense of security that they aren't carrying COVID, when in reality they might be get sick in two days' time.

Emily

Edited September 7, 2020 by EmilyGF

[Ottakee]

Thanks for all of the responses.

Besides work, I had forgotten about medical appointments.  Last week we had 8, the week before 10.  This week only 4-5.  

Some could be delayed or rescheduled or possibly done remotely but not things like blood work, CT scan, etc. that were needed asap this week.

[MEmama]

We did in May when DS had Covid toes. Honestly it wasn’t much different than our new-normal lives.
 

For us it was very easy.

Actually, we quarantined for 3 weeks just to be on the safer side.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

It would be very challenging for us to voluntarily quarantine. DH has two essential medical appointments this week and one next week. That's not unusual for him, and it's a rare stretch that he has 14 days w/o a medical appointment.

DS21 is an essential worker, although we could, with a little finagling of access to common areas, quarantine ourselves from direct exposure to him.

I could do it relatively easily.

That does bring up the idea that the rest of us could stay away from DS21 (the only one working outside the home) for the most part - we have two bathrooms so could all use the master bath except him....except that's the only one with a shower..so no, that won't work. He could run the exhaust fan when showering and us avoid that bathroom right after, and him mask in the common areas and eat in his room, etc..but we have central air so not sure that even really matters. 

46 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Aren’t the nasal swabs PCR tests? 

Some are the "antigen" tests. Which is a distinction making me crazy because technically PCR tests are a type of antigen test too, just a more specific type. But anyway, the rapid tests are also a nasal swab in many places, and are called antigen tests, and are less reliable. 

[EmilyGF]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Aren’t the nasal swabs PCR tests? 

Are PCR tests taking 2 days in NY now? I'm referencing the "fast, easy, cheap" Michael Mina-style tests that are being advocated for for use in workplaces etc, to screen workers when they leave at night and then tell them whether they are safe to work with others in the morning. Yes, I think nasal swabs are PCR.

Emily

[TravelingChris]

Could we do it?  Yes, fairly easily since when I am home ( I am on a big road trip vacation),I normally just go to med appts, grocery stores, and walks.   Dh works mostly from home and maybe could work completely from home in a two week period.   But I am not going to large family gatherings since I don't have a large family.  I don't think I would quarantine, unless I knew we were exposed or had symptoms.