Explain this quarantine situation

[Melaine]

ETA: this is what I get for getting news from the teens. Apparently they are allowed to come to school but parents are keeping them home a little longer as precaution. So the issue I had (interpretation of the flowchart being inconsistent) was totally wrong!

We have friends (five kids plus an extra roommate) who have been dealing with Covid for weeks now. First positive test was over a month ago, and the last man standing tested positive this week. Our school is requiring the whole family to continue staying home because of the most recent quarantined member, even the ones who tested positive nearly three weeks ago and are now symptom free? Admin is saying they could still spread Covid to others? Is this correct? The frustrating thing is all the flowcharts still don’t address some of these weird caveats. I am honestly baffled by this.

[MSWR0319]

In our area, if someone in your house is covid positive, everyone quarantines. No matter if you've had it previously or not. You can get covid again, so technically could be contagious, though it's highly unlikely so soon after. Also, it could get really messy to say X and B can leave the house but C can't. You'd have to have doctor's proof of positives tests, otherwise people would be lying and saying that they had it just to get out of quarantine. It's just easier to quarantine the whole house.

[Melaine]

In our area, if someone in your house is covid positive, everyone quarantines. No matter if you've had it previously or not. You can get covid again, so technically could be contagious, though it's highly unlikely so soon after. Also, it could get really messy to say X and B can leave the house but C can't. You'd have to have doctor's proof of positives tests, otherwise people would be lying and saying that they had it just to get out of quarantine. It's just easier to quarantine the whole house.

But you can’t get it three weeks after you just had it. It’s really hard for kids who are then missing a month of school (when there is no virtual option for them to take advantage of). Is anyone requiring proof of any kind about tests either way? Isn’t it self reported regardless? (Ie they didn’t have to test or disclose the results if they weren’t going to be honest). I would much rather hang out with a kid who tested positive three weeks ago and has been home as opposed to some families who are out in the mix 24/7 and are more likely to be carrying it. Just doesn’t make sense to me!

[bisous]

I don't think a lot of these policies are consistent with what we know scientifically or are even internally consistent! But I also think that there is a lot we don't know. It is very frustrating to feel like you're being penalized for being honest. I'm sorry this family is struggling. I'm SO grateful that they have the integrity to be careful. I don't know if what they are doing is needed but I am glad they're taking a cautious approach. I wish they had access to remote learning so the kids wouldn't fall behind!

[KpbS]

That is really frustrating for sure. If I was a director/admin, I would let the kids return to school 10 days after with proof of a positive test prior. They do not need to retest as they may still test positive for a long while, but not actually be infectious.

[MSWR0319]

But you can’t get it three weeks after you just had it. It’s really hard for kids who are then missing a month of school (when there is no virtual option for them to take advantage of). Is anyone requiring proof of any kind about tests either way? Isn’t it self reported regardless? (Ie they didn’t have to test or disclose the results if they weren’t going to be honest). I would much rather hang out with a kid who tested positive three weeks ago and has been home as opposed to some families who are out in the mix 24/7 and are more likely to be carrying it. Just doesn’t make sense to me!

I think the bigger issue may be that the school isn't offering an alternative for kids who are quarantined. It's perfectly possible that Covid goes through a house and the last person that gets it is the kid, so they had to be quarantined for a long time. The school needs an option for kids who are quarantined for any amount of time. Our public school doesn't have a virtual option but they are doing things for the kids who have to be quarantined.

I'm not saying the policy is necessarily right. I'm just saying that it's hard to make a policy with all sorts of exceptions and is probably easiest to just do a blanket statement. I.e A statement like "If you've had covid within the last month you don't have to quarantine if another family member gets it and you are done with your quarantine time. But if it's been longer than 3 months, you have to quarantine regardless." is probably just too much. The fact is, we just don't know what that time frame is where you can get it twice yet. While policies are frustrating we have to be gracious and patient and understand that these type of things can and should change as more information comes about. Until then, we just have to deal with stuff whether is makes sense to us or not.

[gymnbomb]

Do we know yet if you can be a carrier and spread it to others if you are re-exposed shortly after recovering, even if you don’t get sick again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[klwa]

Add me to the count of those concerned more by the "no virtual option" than the "kids are in quarantine until time runs out on the last one". The school is failing them, but not by making them stay home. The school is failing them by not having something in place for those who need to quarantine but can still do their school work!

[MSWR0319]

Do we know yet if you can be a carrier and spread it to others if you are re-exposed shortly after recovering, even if you don’t get sick again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that I've heard. That's why this policy does't bother me.

[Kestrel]

I would be very upset if my child was missing that much school. The school needs a plan. If they are not doing virtual for some reason, at the very least they should be providing materials for home study (worksheets and books and lessons). The school should be able to drop off - or perhaps mail? - schoolwork to do at home during this time.

Contact school/principal and demand some kind of a plan. This can't be the only child in this situation. Squeaky wheels and pissed-off parents is what drives change in public schools.

[wendibird22]

Add me to the count of those concerned more by the "no virtual option" than the "kids are in quarantine until time runs out on the last one". The school is failing them, but not by making them stay home. The school is failing them by not having something in place for those who need to quarantine but can still do their school work!

I totally agree.

And yes, in my area, regardless of your prior covid pos status, your quarantine clock begins when the last person's ends, unless the infected individual(s) isolate separately (own bedroom and bathroom).

And just wait until fully vaccinated people are still made to quarantine due to exposure and balk at that. I imagine there will be quite a few people crying "why bother to get vaccinated then if I still have to quarantine!"

[petesgirl]

That doesn't make sense to me. You have to draw the line somewhere. If your district can't draw reasonable lines then they have no business being in person yet. Our district says a positive child has to quarantine until 10 days post symptom onset. Then that child can return to school, even if others in the house are still quarantined, which they would be if that child was the first person to get it. Once a positive case is known, the entire household quarantines for 14 days past the last day of the first positive person's quarantine. So when we had it, that meant DH should have been in quarantine for 24 days, but he wasn't because his boss only allowed him 14 days. But the first person to get it will complete quarantine before the others. Then they have 90 days in which they are considered 'immune', meaning that if they are exposed during that time they don't have to quarantine again.

[chlobo]

But you can’t get it three weeks after you just had it. It’s really hard for kids who are then missing a month of school (when there is no virtual option for them to take advantage of). Is anyone requiring proof of any kind about tests either way? Isn’t it self reported regardless? (Ie they didn’t have to test or disclose the results if they weren’t going to be honest). I would much rather hang out with a kid who tested positive three weeks ago and has been home as opposed to some families who are out in the mix 24/7 and are more likely to be carrying it. Just doesn’t make sense to me!

I believe in our town that all cases are reported to the Department of Health and sometimes the community nurse follows up. Also, our school would certainly require some kind of paperwork before they let the kids back in school. My son had to quarantine for exposure and I got an email from the nurse asking for his negative test results so people are checking.

[chlobo]

I don't think a lot of these policies are consistent with what we know scientifically or are even internally consistent! But I also think that there is a lot we don't know. It is very frustrating to feel like you're being penalized for being honest. I'm sorry this family is struggling. I'm SO grateful that they have the integrity to be careful. I don't know if what they are doing is needed but I am glad they're taking a cautious approach. I wish they had access to remote learning so the kids wouldn't fall behind!

Totally with you on the inconsistent part. My son was a contact and had to quarantine and then so did my daughter as the sibling of a close contact. She had a nordic ski race (outside, distancing, etc) and I asked the nurse if I could get my daughter a rapid PCR test on the day of the race so she could race. Nurse said no, my *son* had to test negative even though he wasn't the one who was going to the race. So strange.

[dogmom]

Totally with you on the inconsistent part. My son was a contact and had to quarantine and then so did my daughter as the sibling of a close contact. She had a nordic ski race (outside, distancing, etc) and I asked the nurse if I could get my daughter a rapid PCR test on the day of the race so she could race. Nurse said no, my *son* had to test negative even though he wasn't the one who was going to the race. So strange.

Your son had a known exposure to a person A that tested positive, so Person A was infectious.
Your household has to quarantine because you son may be have gotten Covid. Depending where he is in the process, what his viral load is (which partially depends on the viral load of person A), and how good the sample is, the test may or may not be positive even if he has Covid.
To test your other household members but skip the potential point of infection in your house (son) just tells us that your daughter is not positive at the time she was tested. So it needs to be determined if your son is positive first.
She could go home for testing, interact with son who may be positive, and then go off to the ski race. Are they not hanging out at all? traveling in separate vehicles? Never eating or drinking? It’s just not a risk most sports should be taking.
We only use rapid tests in the emergency room when we need to find out disposition and we still assume they are Covid Risk until they are tested by PCR test and symptom free. There are many people “converting” to positive after a negative test. People have been saying if you test negative you can’t infect anyone, but case studies have proven that wrong.

Then, there is who is paying for the testing and the parameters. You can’t use testing money to keep schools open and safe to send kids off to athletic events. Some of it is coming from grant money with rules.

So it’s not inconsistent necessarily as the logic and protocol not being understood by everyone. I wouldn’t expect everyone too. The protocols are evolving, not as fast as the spring, but both because testing is different, more available and we have learned more about the disease. Also, you can follow the protocol and do testing without understanding all the reasons behind it. It’s not like I understand why I have to change the oil in the car at X miles, I just do it.

[AngB]

I already made a BP about this but my son was on a dumb "modified quarantine" (if close contact and positive person were masked, then close contact can continue to go to school during quarantine but only school) that our state/health dept./school district decided to go with, to keep schools staffed, and he started having typical cold symptoms day 11. Tested negative on rapid and PCR. (And it was day 11 post exposure. And he had been going to school- only school per the dumb rules- during this time.) BUT since he got symptoms during quarantine regardless of any testing, now he's "presumed positive" meaning that now his close contact classmates are also quarantining/ "modified quarantining". BUT, he gave his cold to the rest of our family. (I have had both covid vaccinations and also tested negative and had the exact same symptoms as DS2, just days later.) So now DS3 is "presumed positive" and his class has to quarantine even though he would test negative (there's no point in testing him since they consider him positive no matter what.) AND DS1's class has to quarantine.

AND

DS2's best friend's mom just messaged me that her son now has a cold. His covid test was negative. Luckily they don't sit near each other in school so he was not a "close contact" from DS or quarantined. But I am guessing that if his friend that they played briefly together on the playground last Monday really caught his cold (they are in the same class together) then it's unlikely that his close contacts didn't also catch his cold. And since they will be "Modified quarantined" thanks to our "presumed positive" that was actually negative..now it's going to quarantine all their families as well.

Glad it's not my mess to figure out. I told them that we may have been the first family that had this issue but since it's cold/flu season they are going to run into it, especially with having kids going to school while quarantined. And they sent emails to my kids' classes that a classmate had tested positive so all of these families are probably freaking out unnecessarily initially thinking they have covid since they think they've been exposed to covid.

AND in the meantime, we don't have a mask mandate, our vaccine distribution is the worst in the country (my mom spent hours today trying to figure out how to get one for my 97 yo grandmother to no avail even though they've been giving them out to her tier for weeks), and adults aren't even being contract traced/quarantined at all.

[doberbrat]

We have the same policies. And yes, it means you could be quarantining for over a month. its the definite downside to going back to school in person when positivity rates are so high.

[pharmjenn]

Do we know yet if you can be a carrier and spread it to others if you are re-exposed shortly after recovering, even if you don’t get sick again?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They know that vaccinated persons can spread the virus if they have contact (and carry the virus in their nostrils), thus why we need to continue wearing masks and distancing until the virus load in your area has significantly decreased. So I would assume the same for a recently positive person.


Y
We only use rapid tests in the emergency room when we need to find out disposition and we still assume they are Covid Risk until they are tested by PCR test and symptom free. There are many people “converting” to positive after a negative test. People have been saying if you test negative you can’t infect anyone, but case studies have proven that wrong.


My facility does the same. In fact, we had patient test negative on both the rapid test and pcr on admit, and thus was not put into isolation. Along with other problems, the patient began experiencing covid symptoms a few weeks after admit and was retested, with a positive result. That gave us the cause of our significant increase in staff infection over 2 months. So now our protocols have changed and everyone is considered positive.

[chlobo]

Your son had a known exposure to a person A that tested positive, so Person A was infectious.
Your household has to quarantine because you son may be have gotten Covid. Depending where he is in the process, what his viral load is (which partially depends on the viral load of person A), and how good the sample is, the test may or may not be positive even if he has Covid.
To test your other household members but skip the potential point of infection in your house (son) just tells us that your daughter is not positive at the time she was tested. So it needs to be determined if your son is positive first.
She could go home for testing, interact with son who may be positive, and then go off to the ski race. Are they not hanging out at all? traveling in separate vehicles? Never eating or drinking? It’s just not a risk most sports should be taking.
We only use rapid tests in the emergency room when we need to find out disposition and we still assume they are Covid Risk until they are tested by PCR test and symptom free. There are many people “converting” to positive after a negative test. People have been saying if you test negative you can’t infect anyone, but case studies have proven that wrong.

Then, there is who is paying for the testing and the parameters. You can’t use testing money to keep schools open and safe to send kids off to athletic events. Some of it is coming from grant money with rules.

So it’s not inconsistent necessarily as the logic and protocol not being understood by everyone. I wouldn’t expect everyone too. The protocols are evolving, not as fast as the spring, but both because testing is different, more available and we have learned more about the disease. Also, you can follow the protocol and do testing without understanding all the reasons behind it. It’s not like I understand why I have to change the oil in the car at X miles, I just do it.

They were not mingling at all. He was in a separate room with a separate bathroom in a separate part of the house and if he left his room he wore a mask and never sat down with us to spend time. He ate in his room.

If you meant my daughter, she is fully remote for school (her choice). Spends most of her day in her room. She drives herself to practice/races, a rule change that was made this year to keep the athletes safer. At the ski track they maintain distance and are always in masks and outdoors. They've changed the race format to a time trial format. Kids do not mix with other teams. Times are compared at the end. While random athletes have tested positive for COVID there has been no documented transmission from athlete to athlete. I think being outside has a lot to do with it.

I had no qualms about testing my son. In fact, we tested him twice - day 5 and day 7 because the rules differed depending on which school we were talking about (HS vs. MS) and their household member of a close contact rules. And for the record, we never intended to use public money for the sports test but to pay out of pocket at the local urgent care clinic that offers testing. In fact, if I understood their website correctly, we even had to pay for the test through the urgent care that allowed my son to return to school yesterday. $150.

Both tests my son got were PCR tests (one "rapid", meaning 5-6 hours and one "regular") that the school accepts for return to school.

Lest you think we are careless or cavalier about COVID, we are not. We rarely leave the house, except to go for walks in our rural town, grocery shopping or to go cross country skiing at the local facility which requires masking, which we always adhere to. We haven't had outside haircuts since this began. Haven't been to the gym, a bar, a restaurant (except for takeout). My son will occasionally meet his friends outside, fully masked or see them skiing, also masked. My daughter's only contact outside of the house is at her ski practice and races, which is outside and masked. I've only seen my mother from a distance on her porch with masks on.

I completely understand everything you posted and the rationale. As you pointed out, though, my son could have tested negative and then flipped positive later so there is always a risk, regardless of who is being tested. In my mind, it seemed "better" to test the person who was going to be in the presence of others later on the same day. And FTR, we did completely comply with quarantine.

[mikala]

I have a question about siblings of close contacts. In our district if child A has close contact exposure with a positive case child A is quarantined for 10-14 days, but sibling B is not quarantined and can continue to go to school unless A shows symptoms or tests positive.

Our public health dept is generally pretty cautious but this seems like a risky guideline and I'm curious how others handle it.

[gymnbomb]

I have a question about siblings of close contacts. In our district if child A has close contact exposure with a positive case child A is quarantined for 10-14 days, but sibling B is not quarantined and can continue to go to school unless A shows symptoms or tests positive.

Our public health dept is generally pretty cautious but this seems like a risky guideline and I'm curious how others handle it.

I believe this is the way it is done here too. A close contact is quarantined, but a "contact of a contact" is not quarantined. Obviously if Child A developed symptoms or tested positive the situation would immediately change.

[ang79]

I have a question about siblings of close contacts. In our district if child A has close contact exposure with a positive case child A is quarantined for 10-14 days, but sibling B is not quarantined and can continue to go to school unless A shows symptoms or tests positive.

Our public health dept is generally pretty cautious but this seems like a risky guideline and I'm curious how others handle it.

Pretty sure that is how our district is handling it too (and many others). We are doing the cyber option so haven't had to deal with it, but from hearing from some of the kids' friends or girls in my GS troop, siblings, or parents working in the district, only have to quarantine if the student gets symptoms. A friend in a different district had a son who was a close contact, he had to quarantine but his younger sister was still able to go so school. But my friend who works in education in a different setting than his school, had to quarantine because that was the rule of her employer.

In the OP's situation, I don't see how the school is getting through this year without having at home work for kids quarantining. Even within a small private school there is risk of students and staff having to quarantine because of outside exposures. That is a huge disservice to their students if they are unable to provide some sort of at home work option for those students.

[California]

Melaine, it may be that the district protocol is intended to also protect against surface transmission. I know that’s not currently a big fear but when the district was deciding on the rules, teachers may not have wanted any items (or kids) in their classrooms from a Covid19 positive household.

The lack of a good virtual option makes me wonder if the district is underfunded or understaffed? At least they aren’t forcing teachers to juggle teaching in person and online at the same time, which would be way too heavy if a burden on them.

[Twin Mom]

I have a question about siblings of close contacts. In our district if child A has close contact exposure with a positive case child A is quarantined for 10-14 days, but sibling B is not quarantined and can continue to go to school unless A shows symptoms or tests positive.

Our public health dept is generally pretty cautious but this seems like a risky guideline and I'm curious how others handle it.

That’s how it is here too. DD was exposed last Monday to her friend’s father who tested positive. Her friend and friend’s sister were negative. DD has to quarantine for 10 days. Our schools aren’t allowing you to return after 7 days and a negative test even though thats part of the CDC guidance now. She can return to school on Friday. She has a twin. He is still allowed to go to school. I am still allowed to go to work (wfh so not an issue). No quarantine required. This is her first quarantine.

I got a call from the school yesterday that DS was exposed last week so he is now on his own quarantine not related to his sister. He can return to school on Monday. This is his 3rd quarantine due to exposure to someone who tested positive at school. Fortunately there is a virtual option so they just switch to virtual during their quarantine.

[dogmom]

They were not mingling at all. He was in a separate room with a separate bathroom in a separate part of the house and if he left his room he wore a mask and never sat down with us to spend time. He ate in his room.

If you meant my daughter, she is fully remote for school (her choice). Spends most of her day in her room. She drives herself to practice/races, a rule change that was made this year to keep the athletes safer. At the ski track they maintain distance and are always in masks and outdoors. They've changed the race format to a time trial format. Kids do not mix with other teams. Times are compared at the end. While random athletes have tested positive for COVID there has been no documented transmission from athlete to athlete. I think being outside has a lot to do with it.

I had no qualms about testing my son. In fact, we tested him twice - day 5 and day 7 because the rules differed depending on which school we were talking about (HS vs. MS) and their household member of a close contact rules. And for the record, we never intended to use public money for the sports test but to pay out of pocket at the local urgent care clinic that offers testing. In fact, if I understood their website correctly, we even had to pay for the test through the urgent care that allowed my son to return to school yesterday. $150.

Both tests my son got were PCR tests (one "rapid", meaning 5-6 hours and one "regular") that the school accepts for return to school.

Lest you think we are careless or cavalier about COVID, we are not. We rarely leave the house, except to go for walks in our rural town, grocery shopping or to go cross country skiing at the local facility which requires masking, which we always adhere to. We haven't had outside haircuts since this began. Haven't been to the gym, a bar, a restaurant (except for takeout). My son will occasionally meet his friends outside, fully masked or see them skiing, also masked. My daughter's only contact outside of the house is at her ski practice and races, which is outside and masked. I've only seen my mother from a distance on her porch with masks on.

I completely understand everything you posted and the rationale. As you pointed out, though, my son could have tested negative and then flipped positive later so there is always a risk, regardless of who is being tested. In my mind, it seemed "better" to test the person who was going to be in the presence of others later on the same day. And FTR, we did completely comply with quarantine.

Just to be clear, I made no assuming of what you did or did not do. I was just explaining the rationale for the policy as compared to the policy and reasons I am familiar with since you expressed that you felt they were inconsistent. I would never assume anyone actually stuck to the in house quarantine if I was dealing with the chance they could spread it to another household, because people in general can sort of suck at it. Your family might be awesome, but that wasn’t the point of my comment. It’s not a value judgment, just an acknowledgement of how things general work because in most households it jumps around the family. I do believe it is a minority of households who get Covid where only one person gets it. Once again, it’s great they have proper precautions in place for your daughters sports and adhering to them, but I’ve driven past practices after hearing from some parent how great some team is doing and even going by at 35 mph and can see them breaking their rules. I don’t even look now, it’s too frustrating.

But the reality is IF this country followed most of the protocols most of the time we would not be staring down a half a million dead. We aren’t. We are sucking at it. So no public health or medical person is going to trust anyone at this point, because we have been beaten down so much. That is the lesson we learned from this. It sucks you get to be the adult in the room of toddlers, metaphorically speaking, but that’s just how things are now.

[petesgirl]

They know that vaccinated persons can spread the virus if they have contact (and carry the virus in their nostrils), thus why we need to continue wearing masks and distancing until the virus load in your area has significantly decreased. So I would assume the same for a recently positive person.



My facility does the same. In fact, we had patient test negative on both the rapid test and pcr on admit, and thus was not put into isolation. Along with other problems, the patient began experiencing covid symptoms a few weeks after admit and was retested, with a positive result. That gave us the cause of our significant increase in staff infection over 2 months. So now our protocols have changed and everyone is considered positive.

How do you know the patient didn't catch it while at your facility though? It doesn't seem likely that the patient would come in with it but it would take weeks to develop symptoms. It seems much more probable that patient was actually negative on admit and caught it there.

(Honest question; just wondering how the facility arrived at the point of deciding this patient started the outbreak. Also, probably a good idea to just consider all patients positive.)

[dogmom]

How do you know the patient didn't catch it while at your facility though? It doesn't seem likely that the patient would come in with it but it would take weeks to develop symptoms. It seems much more probable that patient was actually negative on admit and caught it there.

(Honest question; just wondering how the facility arrived at the point of deciding this patient started the outbreak. Also, probably a good idea to just consider all patients positive.)

I know at my sister hospital (which might be this one) they know because they did a backward contact tracing and some genetic analysis. It turned into a big outbreak. It did cause the whole system to crack down on staff eating and social distancing. Of course that meant they actually had to give staff places to eat where they could be socially distant. In this case the patient zero kept coming out to the hallway not wearing a mask, so there was a bit of high suspicion. There have been cases of visitors giving it to patients or staff giving it to patients (that’s usually how it gets into a long term care place). We have since change are rules about testing and most patients will get tested every three days while inpatient.

[Dayzy]

Your son had a known exposure to a person A that tested positive, so Person A was infectious.
Your household has to quarantine because you son may be have gotten Covid. Depending where he is in the process, what his viral load is (which partially depends on the viral load of person A), and how good the sample is, the test may or may not be positive even if he has Covid.
To test your other household members but skip the potential point of infection in your house (son) just tells us that your daughter is not positive at the time she was tested. So it needs to be determined if your son is positive first.
She could go home for testing, interact with son who may be positive, and then go off to the ski race. Are they not hanging out at all? traveling in separate vehicles? Never eating or drinking? It’s just not a risk most sports should be taking.
We only use rapid tests in the emergency room when we need to find out disposition and we still assume they are Covid Risk until they are tested by PCR test and symptom free. There are many people “converting” to positive after a negative test. People have been saying if you test negative you can’t infect anyone, but case studies have proven that wrong.





That's not how it works where I am at all. The younger daughter of my friend was deemed a contact with a positive case through her class at school. Daughter had to quarantine, but other family members, since they were not the contact of the positive case, do not have to quarantine. They could go to work and school as normal. They would only have to quarantine if daughter became positive.

[basil]

Things that have helped me come to terms with these arbitrary rules:

1) People making the rules have little guidance from the federal government on these situations. They are trying the best they can to keep people safe. Sometimes fear (for themselves or the people they are responsible for) leads them to make decisions that are not supported by science.
2) People making the rules have to expect that the average person will take it one step further than the rules actually allow. Kind of like posting the speed limit 65 and hoping people keep it under 80. So if they say curbside pick up is allowed, then maybe people will think that running quick into the store is ok too. If they say walking in the neighborhood is ok without a mask, well maybe stopping by for a quick chat with the neighbor is too? In reality, no one is catching or giving people COVID walking down an empty street, but most people are dumb and you can only make simple rules.

[pharmjenn]

How do you know the patient didn't catch it while at your facility though? It doesn't seem likely that the patient would come in with it but it would take weeks to develop symptoms. It seems much more probable that patient was actually negative on admit and caught it there.

(Honest question; just wondering how the facility arrived at the point of deciding this patient started the outbreak. Also, probably a good idea to just consider all patients positive.)

I don't recall the specific timeline, but the state did come and do contact tracing. I was surprised it never made the local news like a Christmas outbreak at a San Jose area hospital. We went from fewer than 20 staff positives in the 6 months we were tracing to over 40 staff testing positive in a month. Nurses started doing weekly testing and infections have dropped back down to just a couple. It helps that all staff have now been offered the vaccine.