AIBU to expect those who test Covid positive to tell others?

LovelyLady

I’d send my apologies stating I’m not attending as I don’t want to be around anyone with COVID
As we’re not told who has COVID, I don’t know how close I’d be and could be at risk of infection.

You and I are reading this situation very differently.

I assumed that the reports of Covid came in after the meeting, so the infected people didn't know they had it when they were there, but are letting people know so that they can test.

Are you assuming that they have called the secretary to say that they are infected but are going to come along anyway?

That might explain my confusion at why the OP needs to know the names - I can't imagine anyone doing that (I mean, why tell anyone if you are planning to come in like a plague dog?), but I suppose you never know.

Any positives are staying away surely? That's manners !

Our choir is back to pre COVID rules, i.e. no giggling at how off we are, no chucking stuff about and mostly just try to keep in tune? we're all jabbed to glory, kept rules when we needed to but nobody thank gawd has been really I'll.so why would you be so cautious? Have you members at risk? And no, names aren't needed nor should they be divulged without permissions.

I’d send my apologies stating I’m not attending as I don’t want to be around anyone with COVID
As we’re not told who has COVID, I don’t know how close I’d be and could be at risk of infection.

Growing0ldDisgracefully:

'There will be many people who are out in the community unknowingly carrying the virus, not reporting it and not isolating and you won't know their names then'

(with no free testing kits) - but it's already the case with so many asymptomatic infections - and all those who can't be bothered to test or just don't want to know. The numbers will increase, though, so infection rates could rise. I think most people will catch it, sooner or later (the later the better for me)>

If you only saw the person at a distance and weren't really talking to them you might make one decision. If you were chatting to them for 15 minutes or sitting beside them for most of the evening you might make another.
What decisions can you make?

I am also being very careful because of underlying conditions, so I am interested to know what I could do if I heard that named people had reported having Covid at somewhere I'd been, and how that would differ from what I could do if I just knew that some people had taken ill.

All I can think of to do is to test every couple of days to see if I've got it, but that would be the same whether I knew who the 'culprits' were or not.

If they’ve tested positive they should stay at home. Whats the point of advising choirmaster if they’re turning up to sing anyway, they should be told to stay away.

Surely you'll know who the people who have covid are as they won't be at the next meeting. If they are people you would meet in other circumstances they will surely tell you. When I found out I had covid I contacted all those I'd been in touch with during the last few days individually. It's the decent thing to do.

To be perfectly honest, nothing has changed really because there were lots of people even when isolation was mandatory that didn't bother if they felt well. It was always only the people who cared about themselves and their contacts that bothered i the first place. It was always really up to each individual whether they bothered to a)LFT or b) PCR or even test at all.
The only real difference is the mask wearing which again there were lots of people saying they were exempt even when they werent.

win

The only reason you would want to know their names is to have your curiosity satisfied. You do not need to know names for any other reason but I think you feel as a friend you are entitled to know
. You have met in a room with some friends who has since proved positive, it is totally immaterial where you were in relation to whoever they were. You say you only sat next to a couple of people even better as your chances of having caught anything is therefore probably less than others. Just be grateful you are still showing negative and forget it.

That's unfair. If you only saw the person at a distance and weren't really talking to them you might make one decision. If you were chatting to them for 15 minutes or sitting beside them for most of the evening you might make another.

People are just trying to make responsible decisions. Why do some people always have to assume other less pleasant motivations for people's behaviour?

Grantanow

If the government stop issuing free tests this will become rather academic - people are not going to buy tests when so much else is being added to the cost of living.

We have to pay for them in Ireland and it hasn't been a deterrent.

I'm disgusted at a friend's attitude last night after a positive Covid test which he had from Saturday. He said he has to go out as he takes grandkids to school, etc and hates just sitting in the house! I knew I was right to keep him away from my home all along, he thought I was being ridiculous, now I've proved him wrong.

As a confirmed cynic I suspect that the most dangerous members are those who don't bother with a test but pretend they have tested negative.

Grantanow

If the government stop issuing free tests this will become rather academic - people are not going to buy tests when so much else is being added to the cost of living.

The problem is though they cost the Government a fortune No doubt like anything else they will come down in cost Superdrug are already saying they will be selling them at ,£1.89
Expect to see them in the middle of Aldi for a quid
Won't effect those that have no intention of testing free or otherwise

If the government stop issuing free tests this will become rather academic - people are not going to buy tests when so much else is being added to the cost of living.

The only reason you would want to know their names is to have your curiosity satisfied. You do not need to know names for any other reason but I think you feel as a friend you are entitled to know
. You have met in a room with some friends who has since proved positive, it is totally immaterial where you were in relation to whoever they were. You say you only sat next to a couple of people even better as your chances of having caught anything is therefore probably less than others. Just be grateful you are still showing negative and forget it.

HannahLoisLuke

Why are they attending choir practice if they’ve tested positive?
It’s only good manners to stay at home until they are negative. I know we’ve been told we no longer need to do this but I’d rather we did, especially if we’re in the older more vulnerable group. Also a choir is a very efficient way of spreading a virus.

The OP said they tested positive since they attended the choir not before

Susan55

In my view, if someone decides to take a test for themselves, they are clearly making a statement to a certain degree, albeit to themselves, that they care about whether they have Covid or not. There is obviously some concern otherwise they wouldn't bother to take the test, unless it is a requirement for work perhaps.

If they, themselves, feel some concern about whether or not they have Covid, then they would surely understand that others, too, might share that concern. Illnesses tend to affect different people in different ways. What may appear as a light cold to some might appear much more severe in others or affect others in different ways. For example, I suffer from chronic labyrinthitis and catching a cold causes me to suffer from quite nasty vertigo, in addition to the other cold symptoms, because colds affect my ears.

So really, it doesn't matter what the government recommends. At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to understand that not everyone will wish to share their infectious illness for their own personal reasons and keep away from others until they are no longer infectious.

So really, it doesn't matter what the government recommends. At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to understand that not everyone will wish to share their infectious illness for their own personal reasons and keep away from others until they are no longer infectious.

The government have decreed that it's not a legal requirement to isolate. That's not a recommendation, that's a fact. One which I believe quite a few people will use as a reason to ignore the social nicety (for want of a better word) of isolating for a few days - especially those who know someone who's had it and it's "no worse than a cold", and think a great deal of fuss is being made about it. Not to mention those that still don't believe the virus exists anyway.

Of course the government has recommended that people take "personal responsibility".

Some will, others won't.

Why are they attending choir practice if they’ve tested positive?
It’s only good manners to stay at home until they are negative. I know we’ve been told we no longer need to do this but I’d rather we did, especially if we’re in the older more vulnerable group. Also a choir is a very efficient way of spreading a virus.

If they want you to know they will tell you but it’s not nit so to identify an individual when it’s a notification. Nursery/school etc only notify of contact not individual identities.

Presumably as they've had the decency/honesty to report the positive result, they will have the decency to isolate or keep away from practice meetings until they are clear.
What is going to happen once testing kits have to be paid for and many people won't buy them? There will be many people who are out in the community unknowingly carrying the virus, not reporting it and not isolating and you won't know their names then.

In my view, if someone decides to take a test for themselves, they are clearly making a statement to a certain degree, albeit to themselves, that they care about whether they have Covid or not. There is obviously some concern otherwise they wouldn't bother to take the test, unless it is a requirement for work perhaps.

If they, themselves, feel some concern about whether or not they have Covid, then they would surely understand that others, too, might share that concern. Illnesses tend to affect different people in different ways. What may appear as a light cold to some might appear much more severe in others or affect others in different ways. For example, I suffer from chronic labyrinthitis and catching a cold causes me to suffer from quite nasty vertigo, in addition to the other cold symptoms, because colds affect my ears.

So really, it doesn't matter what the government recommends. At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to understand that not everyone will wish to share their infectious illness for their own personal reasons and keep away from others until they are no longer infectious.

Esspee

Can we assume the ones who tested positive are not attending choir practice? In that case you really don’t need to know, just test yourself.
If they are still attending then I would be kicking up a huge fuss.

Well there is no law now which says you have to self-isolate.

I've already spoken to two people who said they "wouldn't bother" if they caught it and would just carry on as normal...

Some people have a sense of 'public duty' - others, well, not so much.

I assume the choir members are civilised and will not attend - you just never know...

What would you do differently if you knew their names?

About one in thirty people have Covid - so any meeting in large groups, along with using public transport, shopping etc. carries a risk of infection.

Although I believe it's far too soon to abandon isolation rules, they've gone and we've now moved onto a phase of 'acceptance' of risks. So, the idea of naming positive cases seems outdated too.