California's Department of Health has recently changed its isolation requirements for Covid-19, sparking concerns and criticism. Previously, isolation was required for five days, but the new regulations state that adults can resume normal activities and interactions if they are afebrile for 24 hours and have improving symptoms. They are advised to wear a mask for 10 days. The department claims that these changes are due to the broad immunity from vaccination and/or natural infection, as well as the availability of treatments for infected individuals. They also argue that these guidelines align with the common practice for other respiratory viruses.
However, there are several issues with these statements. Covid-19 cases in California have been surging, with a high test positivity rate and a significant number of deaths. ICU bed availability is also declining. Additionally, Covid-19 can cause long-term health issues, known as long Covid, in up to 20% of those infected. This is not seen in other seasonal respiratory infections. Furthermore, available treatments, such as Paxlovid, are not readily accessible to all, especially those disproportionately impacted by Covid-19.
Another concern raised is the policy allowing asymptomatic Covid-positive students and staff to attend school. They are advised to wear masks and avoid high-risk individuals, but questions arise regarding the reliability of mask-wearing and the identification of high-risk individuals.
Critics argue that the new guidelines are not based on science, equity, or public health. They believe that the lives of immunocompromised and disabled individuals are devalued, and the risk of long Covid is ignored. The California guidelines differ from the CDC's, which recommend a five-day isolation period for test-positive patients.
The reasons behind California's relaxation of protections are not entirely clear. Some speculate that it may be driven by employer pressures or worker shortages in various industries. Critics worry that this decision may exacerbate the problem and undermine both individual and collective health.
It remains to be seen how this change in guidelines will unfold and whether it will prompt a response from the CDC. The impact on public health and the potential for increased transmission and new variants are important factors to consider.