Close Contacts Not Coming Forward For Testing

[Sunny]

Apparently a significant number of close contacts have not come forward for or have refused testing after being identified as being a close contact. 35% of people was mentioned previously. We have had endless debates about things like masks and quarantine for people arriving in the Country and yet we have people who we know have been in contact with a positive case not being tested and therefore one must assume is not isolating themselves. The flights from the US with 16 people on it make great stories for social media and newspapers but I would have thought this is much bigger concern. Especially since we have told by public health and WHO that test and trace is the only way to control this virus. Surely testing and even quarantine should be mandatory for any identified close contact?

Many people identified as close contacts refusing to come forward for Covid-19 testing

Median age of 165 confirmed cases in last two weeks was 31

www.irishtimes.com

 

[odyssey06]

Not sure of the implication of your post or what concrete measure you are proposing.
Do you mean to imply that we shouldn't discuss masks or foreign travel because of this?

If we proposed mandatory enforced isolation of people who another person merely identified as a close contacts we would no doubt have an 'endless debate' about it too.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern. But tackling is it presents as much issues as e.g. mandatory enforced quarantine or testing of travellers from high risk countries. They are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Sunny]

Not sure of the implication of your post or what concrete measure you are proposing.
If we proposed mandatory enforced isolation of people who another person merely identified as a close contacts we would no doubt have an 'endless debate' about it too.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern. But tackling is it presents as much issues as e.g. mandatory enforced quarantine or testing of travellers from high risk countries.

I am sure we would have an endless debate about it. I am asking the same people jumping up and down about people coming in from abroad why they aren't jumping up and down about this. People seem to think we can just pick and choose things that keep us 'safe' and am willing to bet it because it doesn't affect them personally. Why wouldn't someone identified as a close contact not want to be tested or come forward? It is because they know they will be expected to isolate for 14 days. Every public health briefing and media questioning for the past couple of weeks has been around international travel. It has dominated everything. Social media has daily calls from people including politicians calling for mandatory quarantine for tourists. This story about close contacts not coming forward for testing has got very limited attention before this IT article on the front page and the reaction has been mute. Even today all papers are carrying stories about travel. I have only seen this story in the IT. We are talking about people who have been in CLOSE CONTACT with a known case who deliberately and knowingly are refusing to be tested. Travel is still the minority cause of transmission. Close contact and Community transmission are still the biggest causes and this is a much bigger risk in that context than the hysteria around 16 people including people transferring to other countries arriving on a plane from Dallas.

 

[odyssey06]

I'm not sure what hysteria you are talking about. Who is jumping up and down?
Does a front page on the Irish Times not count as jumping up and down but a front page elsewhere does?
It seems entirely reasonable to question the risks attached to travel and especially travel from higher risk countries to this country, and even more so if there will be an increase in such travel.

Community transmission kicked off initially with international travel, we presume.
When we say community transmission, what we really mean is, ultimately don't really know the source.
We can link a chain but we don't know the starting patient.
So I am a bit dubious about being too certain that community transmission accounting for the majority of cases implies foreign travel is low risk.
It's all connected - social distancing, masks - especially in the context of foreign high-risk visitors and infected people walking about.

So, it's entirely possible to be concerned about multiple issues. It's not one or the other as your post seems to pre-judge.
The person quoted as expressing concerns about the issue is the acting Chief Medical Officer of the state.
Are you only allowing him to be concerned about one thing???

And what do you propose he and the government do about it that is politically feasible?
Bearing in mind the authorities have much more scope re: powers connected to travel in general than they do citizens of this state going about their everyday business.

 

[Leo]

Travel accounts for only 12% of new cases over the past week but a lot of people are making a big deal about those flying in alright. Many of these same people think the pubs should be allowed to open with minimal social distancing. With much of these things though, they see the tourists as someone else, so it's easy to call for others to face restrictions.

Why wouldn't someone identified as a close contact not want to be tested or come forward? It is because they know they will be expected to isolate for 14 days.

There are likely multiple reasons, but I'm guessing among them is the knowledge they would need to declare a positive result on applications for life cover.

 

[Sunny]

I'm not sure what hysteria you are talking about. Who is jumping up and down?
Does a front page on the Irish Times not count as jumping up and down but a front page elsewhere does?
It seems entirely reasonable to question the risks attached to travel and especially travel from higher risk countries to this country, and even more so if there will be an increase in such travel.

Community transmission kicked off initially with international travel, we presume.
When we say community transmission, what we really mean is, ultimately don't really know the source.
We can link a chain but we don't know the starting patient.
So I am a bit dubious about being too certain that community transmission accounting for the majority of cases implies foreign travel is low risk.
It's all connected - social distancing, masks - especially in the context of foreign high-risk visitors and infected people walking about.

So, it's entirely possible to be concerned about multiple issues. It's not one or the other as your post seems to pre-judge.
The person quoted as expressing concerns about the issue is the acting Chief Medical Officer of the state.
Are you only allowing him to be concerned about one thing???

And what do you propose he and the government do about it that is politically feasible?
Bearing in mind the authorities have much more scope re: powers connected to travel in general than they do citizens of this state going about their everyday business.

Where did I say that we can't worry about only one thing? Where did I say it wasn't about multiple issues? Where did I say travel was low risk because communiry transmission was the cause of majority of cases? Where did I say it was unreasonable to question foreign travel?

If you don't know about the hysteria about flights, I suggest you read every newspaper for the past week. Listen to radio shows. Watch prime time or tonight show. Check out social media. Listen to CMO briefings and listen to the questions. Just because there isn't hysteria on AAM doesnt mean it isn't there. Media camping at the airport to question people who have arrived in and grill them on their intentions is hysteria.

Meanwhile confirmed close contacts. Not just contacts but close contacts are free to decide for themselves if they isolate or even if they get tested. I have no idea what they do about but in my opinion, if 35% of close contacts are not coming forward or are not isolating, then this deserves just as much attention as debates about mandatory quarantine for tourists. You might not agree with me and thats fine but your stock response seems to be always 'what would you do about it'. People are allowed to raise questions and concerns without having solutions. I didn't once criticise the Government or CMO. I didn't once criticise their actions. I simply asked the question as to how we can have 35% or more close contacts walking around the streets and refusing testing and not discuss it in the same we discuss travel. We seem to pick and choose what we think is high risk. Tourists arriving in is an easy target. Crowds outside pub equals outrage and calls for pubs to be closed. But we still can't get people to wear masks and now it seems like we can't even get people to get tested when they should.

 

[odyssey06]

Where did I say that we can't worry about only one thing? Where did I say it wasn't about multiple issues? Where did I say travel was low risk because communiry transmission was the cause of majority of cases? Where did I say it was unreasonable to question foreign travel?
If you don't know about the hysteria about flights, I suggest you read every newspaper for the past week. Listen to radio shows. Watch prime time or tonight show. Check out social media. Listen to CMO briefings and listen to the questions. Just because there isn't hysteria on AAM doesnt mean it isn't there. Media camping at the airport to question people who have arrived in and grill them on their intentions is hysteria....

Of course it is valid to be concerned about close contacts coming forward, and not quarantining.
But why bring 'hysteria' about foreign travel into the same post?
And mention 'endless debates' about masks?
What has the one thing to do with the other?
By linking all of them in such a way there was an implication that you were not just raising the issue re: close contacts but also downplaying the other issues. It takes the focus off the very topic (which is an important point) you seem to want to raise and just sows confusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "we pick and choose what we think is high risk". Unless you mean it is as a truism.
Who are "we" and what do we think is high risk that isn't?
There is a lot we don't yet know about this virus.
And maybe there are some things we should be more concerned about to add to the list.
If your issue is with the media reporting, well of course they pick and choose what they think is newsworthy.
Nothing specific with the virus, has always been thus.
Some media outlets operate with outrage as their standard operating mode. On every topic. Homeless, health service, the virus whatever.

When you say "Crowds outside pubs..." what is the implication of your post?
That we ignore social distancing breaches from pubs???
What has it got to do with close contacts not coming forward?
That we should be as outraged about close contacts not coming forward?

The government conduct on masks during the early stages is rightly coming in from criticism, and what was was at best mis-information and at worst dis-information being spread about their handling risks lead to unnecessary infections. And it also accounts for why it is so hard now to get public buy in for mass use of them. So I'm not saying, they are above criticism.

It seems more politically possible to me to bring in or maintain restrictions on travel, those entering the country, or face coverings on public transport, than to compel citizens of the country to have to undergo a medical test and endure enforced mandatory quarantine.
This probably likely also accounts for why there is more pressure on those topics in the media, and briefings along those lines (or briefings against) from government circles.