They may be the isolation rules now. The question is whether they *should* be the rules.

There is no 100% guarantee. e.g. infection may be possible even after 14 days but it is highly unlikely.

Also, reinfection may be possible but again, seems to be highly unlikely ...

1/7 https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1328097692476706822

... On the other hand, isolation imposes a significant cost both on individuals but also on hospitals, business, schools.

So we need to compare the likely benefits of the rules against their costs.

2/7

Having a 14-day rule rather than 7 or 10 days may increase the risk, but only slightly & not at all clear it justifies the additional costs.

When you factor in that compliance is likely to be lower, the longer the isolation, the case for 14 days is even weaker

3/7

Forcing people who have recently been infected to quarantine again is likely to lead a negligible reduction in risk and almost certainly does not justify the additional costs.

Some specific suggestions for changes to the rules:

4/7

1. Change the standard isolation period to 7 days if no symptoms.

2. Exempt those who have tested positive within the past (say) 6-months, again if no new symptoms.

3. Switch self-isolation rules back to guidance rather than law backed by penalties.

5/7

4. Emphasise extra precautions should to be taken if close to vulnerable people, e.g. the end of isolation for those in health/care sectors could be confirmed by a test.

6/7

These changes would have significant benefits for schools, business, individuals & for staffing at hospitals and care homes. They would also improve compliance.

Finally, a shift from law back to guidance would improve trust between Govt, police & the public.

7/7